What do you think of this "Theory"??

Originally posted by XXXN3O
To introduce my question to you all I need to first state that anything that man creates is never 100% effective.

I learned of this after working in cell culture labs and it is a universal truth for all areas.

If we buy software for every so many created one will be defective.

If we clone a person they will be 99.9% the same as the original and this will degrade if you clone the clone.

If we copy a CD/DVD on a pc it will be 99.9% the same.

Software has variables left over from programming and therefore is never perfect just ask bill gates! (windows)

We create machines to build cars etc etc and every so many are still at fault because it is a man made machine creating a machine.

We create music from imperfection for crying out loud!

I have tried to give some simple examples but this is a fact for all life and it is the basis of human life and that is why we are imperfect individuals.

Society seems to be trying to make us perfect despite our imperfections.

My question is this.

Do you think that persuit of perfection will lead to our destruction?

Im keeping it simple until I get a few good posts.

Feel free to comment on anything slightly on topic as it is a pretty huge generalisation but I am sure you will get the point I am making

Cheers people

[edit on 27-10-2008 by XXXN3O]

What's perfect to you, might not be perfect to me.

Would that then make it "Perfection" is in the eye of the beholder?

Perhaps when we stop socially teaching perfections image, we will know what true perfection is. Just remember what perfect means.

being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish

perfective: a tense of verbs used in describing action that has been completed (sometimes regarded as perfective aspect)

Having both male and female parts.

Originally posted by Trojan_libido

We create machines to build cars etc etc and every so many are still at fault because it is a man made machine creating a machine.

I work in a factory writing software and integrating machine data with real time manufacturing reports. A machine will always do exactly the same thing, thats where repeatability comes in. If the parts change, the machine settings, basically when things change, you dont have the same process. The machine will, if the same parts and settings are used, produced exactly the same result.

This also adds because machines are man made and deteriorate as you state therefore are imperfect.

Use the machine and it breaks eventually. WHY?

Created by man as a money making scam first off and then created to deteriorate creating yet more money to feed the greed.

Most of it is intentional but some is not.

Either way it feeds the other guys stinking greed.


[edit on 12-12-2008 by XXXN3O]

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

Perhaps when we stop socially teaching perfections image, we will know what true perfection is. Just remember what perfect means.

This is exactly my point that I am trying to make.

I believe we are labelling things we do not understand and leading a society based on the other guys greed.

We build machines from parts that deteriorate over time when they can be galvanised to withstand much longer periods (all for profit greed) and live in a competitive world where the guy who has more greed wins.

Look at our current economic, criminal, educational and employment situation and that will tell you all about the greed that society is based on.

Even on a local level in a job we get backstabbing people who feed the greed.

Its everywhere and it is the main reason that all of this current situation is here right now.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by XXXN3O]

reply to post by XXXN3O


I fully agree with you, but that is what even our thinking is based off of.

Incentive

Incentive problems

Incentive structures, however, are notoriously more tricky than they might appear to people who set them up. Human beings are both finite and creative; that means that the people offering incentives are often unable to predict all of the ways that people will respond to them. Thus, imperfect knowledge and unintended consequences can often make incentives much more complex than the people offering them originally expected, and can lead either to unexpected windfalls or to disasters produced by unintentionally perverse incentives.

For example, decision-makers in for-profit firms often have to decide what incentives they will offer to employees and managers, in order to encourage them to act in ways that will lead to greater success for the firm. But many corporate policies — especially of the "extreme incentive" variant popular during the 1990s — that aimed to encourage productivity have, in some cases, led to spectacular failures as a result of unintended consequences. For example, stock options were intended to boost CEO productivity by offering a remunerative incentive (profits from soaring stock prices) for CEOs to improve company performance. But CEOs could get profits from soaring stock prices either (1) by making sound decisions and reaping the rewards of a long-term price increase, or (2) by fudging or fabricating accounting information to give the illusion of economic success, and reaping profits from the short-term price increase by selling before the truth came out and prices tanked. The perverse incentives created by the availability of option (2) have been blamed for many of the falsified earnings reports and public statements in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Similarly, throughout the 1990s and 2000s, many corporations have sought to increase individual incentives by increasing the sizes of bonuses (to the point where they exceed salaries, sometimes by a factor as high as 10) for star performers while also laying off large proportions of their workforce, hoping to cultivate fear factor-related gains. The most extreme version of this is "forced ranking", a scheme by which workers are annually ranked and a set proportion (between 10 and 15%, usually) automatically fired. The results of these programs are mixed, but in extreme cases, usually negative.

While competition among firms has often beneficial results, lowering prices and encouraging innovation, competition within firms has almost uniformly negative results. Designed to encourage production, extreme incentive schemes actually create a cut-throat working environment where office politics dominate and actually overshadow the productive goals of the company. An example of this is the now-deceased Enron corporation. According to David Callahan's The Cheating Culture, the environment at that company was so cut-throat (as a result of extreme incentive management) that employees feared leaving their computer terminals, worried that co-workers might steal information for their own purposes.

I believe this is the base of many problems. Because people will only willingly do thing what is pleasing to them, society can't be based off of incentive.

Until people make the change first in themselves, regardless of the outside flow, things will not change.

Peace

perhaps perfection is really unwanted in nature and it relies on imperfections to evolve life to survive its environments...