What does a "Perfect World" mean to you?
- Thread starter DanZC
- Start date
I'd say a perfect world is one where there's no scarcity of food or resources, money can come from thin air and be easily provided to those who need it, there's no disease, everyone agreed to disagree on things and could still get along, and everyone respected each other enough not to be jerks. I might have missed some stuff but I think that sums up what I envision a perfect world being like.
BadPokemon
Child of Christ
- 666
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Somewhere in the universe
- Seen Jun 2, 2015
I believe the "perfect world" two ways. The first way is that the conditions for complex life to survive are perfect. Perfect, gravity, distance from sun, temperature, etc. The second is a world without sin... How it was before the Fall and how it will be when God ends this one and creates a new earth- whether it's the same one "remodeled" or a new one. Before the Fall there was no sin, and there was a perfect relationship with God.
A perfect world would be a world not destroyed by us, the terrible humans. A world where everything would go as it went, animals would die if they died, no one would take over the world entirely, and nothing interfered with survival of the fittest.
- 910
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Melbourne, Australia
- Seen Jan 2, 2015
I imagine by "perfect" you're referring to our own personal Utopia.
I feel like this is it, or at least we're very close. We're not going to stumble across much better a balance than what we have right now for society. It's going to take some serious work to get our perfect sustainable Utopia, where humans and nature live in perfect symbiotic harmony.
Of course this will be met by opposition and Newton's three laws don't strictly apply to physics alone.
I feel like this is it, or at least we're very close. We're not going to stumble across much better a balance than what we have right now for society. It's going to take some serious work to get our perfect sustainable Utopia, where humans and nature live in perfect symbiotic harmony.
Of course this will be met by opposition and Newton's three laws don't strictly apply to physics alone.
- 939
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Kansas City
- Seen May 19, 2023
From an ultimate standpoint, the world is perfect, always and already. The Spirit, the ultimate Mystery, is the Ground and Goal and Process, standing apart from manifestation even as it is completely absorbed in and involved with manifestation.
It is only from a relative standpoint that there are isolated and separate beings who can suffer. This is the Process of evolution, which begins with Spirit playing a game of hide and seek with itself. The One empties itself into the Many, hiding its own face. Thus is evolution the process of Spirit waking up to its own identity, and thus do the Christian mystics claim that in prayer, it is God who is speaking to Herself.
Perfection is ever-present. Which makes the illusory suffering in the world even more painful in its irony. Those who have seen most clearly that suffering is a mirage have always been the ones to fight the hardest to help others. The very realization of the perfection of the Now generates a deep, overwhelming compassion for those in the bonds of suffering.
It is only from a relative standpoint that there are isolated and separate beings who can suffer. This is the Process of evolution, which begins with Spirit playing a game of hide and seek with itself. The One empties itself into the Many, hiding its own face. Thus is evolution the process of Spirit waking up to its own identity, and thus do the Christian mystics claim that in prayer, it is God who is speaking to Herself.
Perfection is ever-present. Which makes the illusory suffering in the world even more painful in its irony. Those who have seen most clearly that suffering is a mirage have always been the ones to fight the hardest to help others. The very realization of the perfection of the Now generates a deep, overwhelming compassion for those in the bonds of suffering.
DanZC
Pokemon Trainer Dan
- 35
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Seen May 13, 2018
I mean, what does the phrase "perfect world" mean to you. I imagine, you think of "utopia" when you think of "perfect world."
mangamusicfan
The Lost one.
- 490
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 33
- Netherlands
- Seen Sep 23, 2014
A perfect, world Means for me, No more Violence No Nuclear war threats, No more poor Country's Plenty of food, for all the people over the world
Sage Ebock
Squirtle Squad 4 life
- 45
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Michigan (the hinterlands)
- Seen Jun 13, 2014
Imho,
Such a world is one where no one wants for food, clean water, shelter, or medicine. Also, one where we focus heavily on raising individual and collective consciousness. I happen to believe that such a world is very possible.
Such a world is one where no one wants for food, clean water, shelter, or medicine. Also, one where we focus heavily on raising individual and collective consciousness. I happen to believe that such a world is very possible.
Monophobia
Already Dead
- 294
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 24
- Ohio, U.S.A.
- Seen Aug 16, 2015
In the words of Cyrus, a place with no strife.
- 23,568
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- She/Her, It/Its
- Seen today
A world where human dreams aren't tied to social boundaries. It's a place where every human being can break their limits on their own, without having to hold back for the sake of established societies. The thing is: the world is perfect as is, but that's only true as a whole. Man is only part of it, since he is inperfect and thus every society he creates on top of the perfect world is inperfect too.
The thing with human societies is: they are nothing more of a consensus of the masses. Unfortunately "masses" means there are only a few people involved, which is far lesser than every person on the planet. Because there are so few people creating rules and regulations in this sense there's this hugh spike between rich and poor, human and surroundings and so on.
But sadly it's a really hard process and thus most people wouldn't care about such things rendering it as a waste of time (also people are afraid of changes).
The thing with human societies is: they are nothing more of a consensus of the masses. Unfortunately "masses" means there are only a few people involved, which is far lesser than every person on the planet. Because there are so few people creating rules and regulations in this sense there's this hugh spike between rich and poor, human and surroundings and so on.
But sadly it's a really hard process and thus most people wouldn't care about such things rendering it as a waste of time (also people are afraid of changes).
I'll be the selfish one here and straight up tell the truth, I guess.
Perfect world for me would be a world where people don't have to do worry about consequences of their actions without hurting others (for example, not having to do work, study, maintain body shape, etc.) - Definition of laziness, eh? I'd love to do whatever I want as long as my decisions don't influence others, but alas, the world doesn't favor selfish, lazy asses. C'est la vie.
There's something I'm probably forgetting in the midst of my "argument" as well.
Perfect world for me would be a world where people don't have to do worry about consequences of their actions without hurting others (for example, not having to do work, study, maintain body shape, etc.) - Definition of laziness, eh? I'd love to do whatever I want as long as my decisions don't influence others, but alas, the world doesn't favor selfish, lazy asses. C'est la vie.
There's something I'm probably forgetting in the midst of my "argument" as well.
PokemonLeagueChamp
Traveling Hoenn once more.
- 749
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Unova
- Seen Sep 9, 2015
A perfect world? Arguably, that world existed before we came along and screwed it up.
A perfect world in human terms would be free of hate, pain, disease, death, starvation, tyranny, poverty, corruption, boredom, or anything else that we could consider "bad". Pretty much impossible unless you believe in a world beyond this one.
A perfect world in human terms would be free of hate, pain, disease, death, starvation, tyranny, poverty, corruption, boredom, or anything else that we could consider "bad". Pretty much impossible unless you believe in a world beyond this one.
- 3,722
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Ontario, Canada
- Seen Dec 16, 2017
Hm, you make some good points in relation to how a world could be perfect, hypothetically, though agreeing to disagree would be a good concept to grasp I personally don't think it would actually get us anywhere in terms of making important decisions. For instance, if two different parties had varying opinions on a social issue, how would they solve that problem? Sure, they can agree to disagree as a sign of respect for each others' opinion, but would it help in solidifying a solution? Just wondering :P
I definitely agree with the less leniency for people who have committed serious crimes. Often times, when there's nothing else on television, I will flip to a channel that frequently sheds some insight on previous murder trials where the majority of them ended with an individual, or multiple, being convicted. Though there have been questionable decisions in regards to whether the convicted will receive the death sentence, life in prison with or without parole condition. Some of them have been absolutely horrid, and definitely terrifying, but they receive sentences that do not justify the crime they committed. I may be critical and harsh regarding these sorts of situations, but I do think that a good majority of murderers deserve the death sentence; not even sent to an island with others who are equally guilty.
And regarding obesity, it's depressing to think that, correct if I'm wrong, approximately 1 in 3 people in the US are obese even when it's, like you mentioned, a completely avoidable disease given that the individual doesn't have some kind of genetic disposition to it. People just make bad choices in terms of their diet, and because of our fast-paced societies in North America, it has become the first option for many working individuals to grab something from one of the fast food restaurants, hence the term fast food. I do wish more people would spend the time to create homemade meals and actually know what's going into the food they're consuming as a way to prevent obesity.
I'd like to think there should be an equal balance between chaos and peace on Earth; it's the whole sense of equilibrium, if there's too much of one, the world would not persist as it should. So I do agree with you in that there is no such thing as a perfect world, but we can imagine right? (:
That's a good point. Agreeing to disagree all the time would be a problem. What I should have said was, a world where people are able to agree to disagree. There's so many people out there who are chronically unable to agree to disagree. Imo that's what leads to people trying to impose their beliefs onto others (which always ends badly for all parties involved). If two people's beliefs don't affect each other, I think that's when it's appropriate to agree to disagree. But of course, there's times like in politics and law making where someone else's beliefs do affect other people, in which case it's best to discuss and come to a compromise.
Corvus of the Black Night
Wild Duck Pokémon
- 3,416
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 31
- With the Birds
- Seen Jan 9, 2015
A perfect world is an impossible dream. To have everything we wanted, there would be no scarcity. But by default we encounter scarcity, because nothing exists in infinity.
A perfect world is an impossibility. The point of discussing it is to see what things people value, what goals we should be working toward. There are all the obvious ones, like feeding the unfed, stopping unnecessary bloodshed, curing sickness, etc. The way to do all these things is pretty clear, the most significant barrier is just apathy on the part of the public at large.
To that end, I think what our highest and most important goal should be is to galvanize the public to work on these problems. We all know the problems, we all know how to alleviate them to some degree. But there are issues left unaddressed by the "give time and money" approach. First, there's the obvious question of how significant will your efforts be on a global scale. Yes, you're helping, but you're not solving the problems; the world will still turn, sickness and hunger and war will be problems whether you donate $1 or $1,000,000,000 to helping to fix them. In the end, we'll only be scratching the surface of these problems, and while a lot of people will surely be grateful, in the end the problems still exist, the suffering is still there. Which brings us to the second problem.
A lot of the efforts go toward treating the symptom and not the cause. Why is this? Because the symptoms are obvious and treatable, and treating them helps people right now. That's fantastic, and a noble effort, but as I said, it doesn't solve much in the long run. We need to fix the cause if we want to truly stop these things, and that requires a lot more effort and may prove futile in the end should we misunderstand the cause. Identifying the source of the world's woes is, in itself, an almost insurmountable problem. In the end, we'll probably just end up bickering with each other while another ten million people shoot each other or starve to death and have nothing to show for it. And even if we do happen upon the solution to all these problems, I have a hunch that it would require change on a global scale, something that would require more power than any number of people have at the moment. These problems, I think, are systemic, and any discussion of trying to create a perfect world, a world without them, requires us to understand that attaining them would probably involve a great deal of conflict in itself and the destruction of a great deal of our existing social structure. And again, that having happened, we may find those problems still exist, or we may find new problems, problems even worse than the ones we currently have.
At this point, I think I'm just going in circles in my head. Treating the symptom doesn't solve the problem, but finding and fixing the root cause is almost impossible. Do we spend all our resources making some people happy today, only to find plenty more still suffering today and tomorrow? Or do we invest all our resources in finding a lasting solution that ends up not working or making things worse?
In the end, I think it is enough that we get people thinking about and working toward both of these ends. I don't think we'll ever achieve perfection, but I think in our struggle for it, we'll grow stronger as a species and possibly fix them in the course of that journey. Unless we all blow each other up first.
To that end, I think what our highest and most important goal should be is to galvanize the public to work on these problems. We all know the problems, we all know how to alleviate them to some degree. But there are issues left unaddressed by the "give time and money" approach. First, there's the obvious question of how significant will your efforts be on a global scale. Yes, you're helping, but you're not solving the problems; the world will still turn, sickness and hunger and war will be problems whether you donate $1 or $1,000,000,000 to helping to fix them. In the end, we'll only be scratching the surface of these problems, and while a lot of people will surely be grateful, in the end the problems still exist, the suffering is still there. Which brings us to the second problem.
A lot of the efforts go toward treating the symptom and not the cause. Why is this? Because the symptoms are obvious and treatable, and treating them helps people right now. That's fantastic, and a noble effort, but as I said, it doesn't solve much in the long run. We need to fix the cause if we want to truly stop these things, and that requires a lot more effort and may prove futile in the end should we misunderstand the cause. Identifying the source of the world's woes is, in itself, an almost insurmountable problem. In the end, we'll probably just end up bickering with each other while another ten million people shoot each other or starve to death and have nothing to show for it. And even if we do happen upon the solution to all these problems, I have a hunch that it would require change on a global scale, something that would require more power than any number of people have at the moment. These problems, I think, are systemic, and any discussion of trying to create a perfect world, a world without them, requires us to understand that attaining them would probably involve a great deal of conflict in itself and the destruction of a great deal of our existing social structure. And again, that having happened, we may find those problems still exist, or we may find new problems, problems even worse than the ones we currently have.
At this point, I think I'm just going in circles in my head. Treating the symptom doesn't solve the problem, but finding and fixing the root cause is almost impossible. Do we spend all our resources making some people happy today, only to find plenty more still suffering today and tomorrow? Or do we invest all our resources in finding a lasting solution that ends up not working or making things worse?
In the end, I think it is enough that we get people thinking about and working toward both of these ends. I don't think we'll ever achieve perfection, but I think in our struggle for it, we'll grow stronger as a species and possibly fix them in the course of that journey. Unless we all blow each other up first.