5 ms·

> “The dream of a fully frictionless existence, a world of highly efficient cyborgs. Because if you’re not perfectly productive, if you let up for even a moment

> “The dream of a fully frictionless existence, a world of highly efficient cyborgs. Because if you’re not perfectly productive, if you let up for even a moment, you must be sick: The forces of decay will swallow you whole.“ Alas, the author reaches a mountain of a question (as a side note, at that): why are we so dissatisfied with human imperfections?

slx26 5y ago
Well, the problem with human imperfection is that you have to be aware of its many faces, because some of them make our societies more miserable. When imperfection affects only yourself as an individual, or those around you only slightly, it doesn't seem like a big problem. And if it's not a big problem, hey, why do we even make a problem of it at all? Right? But it turns out imperfections reach much further. I want a society that doesn't let anyone sink, that is built to be resilient, that is in control of human wellness. And we are still too imperfect to reach that. Though it's not about imperfection per se, it's about doing better as a tool to make our societies what we would like them to be. Maybe if we reached such equilibrium we could allow ourselves to go back to be much more imperfect again.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  > I want a society that doesn't let anyone sink, that is built to be resilient, that is in control of human wellness. Who decides what is “sinking”? I don’t mean in the sense of “is a teenager given an iPhone X who wanted a 13 ‘sinking’?” but rather: What if some people have a genuine desire to do something that other people (people who are in charge) have decided is “sinking”? Should we abide the will of the former or latter group?
  - slx26 5y ago
    I meant "sinking" as "needing / asking for help and not receiving it". I think the broader point I was trying to make is reasonably clear. We could of course go deeper into philosophy territory... but this is "just" a comments section.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    An easy first step would be to simply ask each person if they are content, feel like they are sinking, have any general grievances (or ideas/perspectives) they'd like to share, etc.
a_e_k 5y ago
For your specific question, I really like the take from Walter M. Miller Jr.'s "A Canticle for Leibowitz" (one of my favorite novels): > The closer men came to perfecting for themselves a paradise, the more impatient they became with it, and with themselves as well. They made a garden of pleasure, and became progressively more miserable with it as it grew in richness and power and beauty; for then, perhaps, it was easier to see something was missing in the garden, some tree or shrub that would not grow. When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it. But when the world became bright with reason and riches, it began to sense the narrowness of the needle's eye, and that rankled for a world no longer willing to believe or yearn.
- vga805 5y ago
  Hadn't heard of this book, I'll have to check it out. It vaguely reminds of something Dostoevsky's Underground Man might have said when he was railing against the utopian rationalists. edit: typo
  - qohen 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz
  - a_e_k 5y ago
    Consider yourself one of today's lucky 10,000, then (https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/). It does help if you have some knowledge of the ways of the Catholic Church when reading the novel. I don't think I could have fully appreciated the richness of "Canticle" if I'd read it at a younger age when I'd had no experience with the Church. But I'll also say that it's one of those books that I love but don't reread too often since it always leaves such an impression. But yes, I would say that the dangers of pure rationalism (without the wisdom to temper it) is something of a theme throughout "Canticle".
causi 5y ago
Satisfaction does not breed improvement.
- andi999 5y ago
  And vice versa.
Apocryphon 5y ago
As valid as that pondering is, and as much as I cherish A Canticle for Leibowitz as one of my faves, I must too scoff at this chestnut like so: "Ah, yes, I too have watched The Eternals."

slx26 5y ago

Well, the problem with human imperfection is that you have to be aware of its many faces, because some of them make our societies more miserable. When imperfection affects only yourself as an individual, or those around you only slightly, it doesn't seem like a big problem. And if it's not a big problem, hey, why do we even make a problem of it at all? Right? But it turns out imperfections reach much further. I want a society that doesn't let anyone sink, that is built to be resilient, that is in control of human wellness. And we are still too imperfect to reach that. Though it's not about imperfection per se, it's about doing better as a tool to make our societies what we would like them to be. Maybe if we reached such equilibrium we could allow ourselves to go back to be much more imperfect again.

sokoloff 5y ago
> I want a society that doesn't let anyone sink, that is built to be resilient, that is in control of human wellness. Who decides what is “sinking”? I don’t mean in the sense of “is a teenager given an iPhone X who wanted a 13 ‘sinking’?” but rather: What if some people have a genuine desire to do something that other people (people who are in charge) have decided is “sinking”? Should we abide the will of the former or latter group?
- slx26 5y ago
  I meant "sinking" as "needing / asking for help and not receiving it". I think the broader point I was trying to make is reasonably clear. We could of course go deeper into philosophy territory... but this is "just" a comments section.
- mistermann 5y ago
  An easy first step would be to simply ask each person if they are content, feel like they are sinking, have any general grievances (or ideas/perspectives) they'd like to share, etc.

a_e_k 5y ago

For your specific question, I really like the take from Walter M. Miller Jr.'s "A Canticle for Leibowitz" (one of my favorite novels): > The closer men came to perfecting for themselves a paradise, the more impatient they became with it, and with themselves as well. They made a garden of pleasure, and became progressively more miserable with it as it grew in richness and power and beauty; for then, perhaps, it was easier to see something was missing in the garden, some tree or shrub that would not grow. When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it. But when the world became bright with reason and riches, it began to sense the narrowness of the needle's eye, and that rankled for a world no longer willing to believe or yearn.

vga805 5y ago
Hadn't heard of this book, I'll have to check it out. It vaguely reminds of something Dostoevsky's Underground Man might have said when he was railing against the utopian rationalists. edit: typo
- qohen 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz
- a_e_k 5y ago
  Consider yourself one of today's lucky 10,000, then (https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/). It does help if you have some knowledge of the ways of the Catholic Church when reading the novel. I don't think I could have fully appreciated the richness of "Canticle" if I'd read it at a younger age when I'd had no experience with the Church. But I'll also say that it's one of those books that I love but don't reread too often since it always leaves such an impression. But yes, I would say that the dangers of pure rationalism (without the wisdom to temper it) is something of a theme throughout "Canticle".

causi 5y ago

Satisfaction does not breed improvement.

andi999 5y ago
And vice versa.

Apocryphon 5y ago

As valid as that pondering is, and as much as I cherish A Canticle for Leibowitz as one of my faves, I must too scoff at this chestnut like so: "Ah, yes, I too have watched The Eternals."