Slashdot Mirror
Benoit Mandelbrot Dies At 85
Beetle B. writes "Benoit Mandelbrot has passed away at the age of 85. I first learned of the Mandelbrot set while reading Arthur C. Clarke's The Ghost From The Grand Banks. Soon after, I got hold of the best fractal generation software of the day — Fractint — and ran it for long periods of time on my XT, exploring the beautiful world that Mandelbrot, among others, had opened up for me. That it was only on a 4-color CGA did not deter me!"
.....
......
umm..yeah.
I know its a mistake to even reply to this crap, but, here it goes...
Hunger is caused not by a lack of food in the world, but in our limited ability to distribute food to the world's hungry. Also, when we do get food over to some of the more starving nations, it often does not end up in the bellies of the hungry, but the warehouses of the corrupt. Suppose a god did "eliminate hunger". So, now the six billion people are nice and full and don't have to worry about starving to death. With all this food but without any restraint, there would be an explosion of births as there is suddenly nutrition to support 12 billion, 18 billion, or more. Now that same god has to do even more work to support the 20 billion people who are now completely unable to support themselves at 6 billion. Thus our species has become little more than useless pets. Is that what you want? To be utterly dependent on the intercession of a god for your life? Perhaps god doesn't intervene because he wants the human race to grow the fuck up.
The same reasoning applies to disease. Disease does a generally good job at population control, this was set in place presumably by god to moderate the effects of a species population explosion. Since you are so adamant about there not being a god (or if there is, that he is evil), what makes you think humans are at all special? All humans are just a bunch of apes with huge mutant brains. You are so adamant about arguing against god, you forget to be consistent. According to you, if god made us and we are special, then he is evil. But you don't believe in god. So what's the big deal about disease. How should we be any more privileged than the pidgeon, the rat or the platypus. Disease helps keep their populations in check, why should it not do the same for us?
Instead of being pissed of at whatever god, why don't you accept responsibility that we do all this to ourselves? For all that you blame the christian god for every evil, did you never stop and think that perhaps you are not the most intelligent being in the universe. Perhaps god knew something about that city of people he had annihilated that you didn't know. Perhaps there was a mutant genetic disorder attached to the Y chromosome. If that were the case, only leaving alive virgin females is the only way to be absolutely sure the mutant "Y" didn't replicate and infect all the future generations of mankind.
Bet you didn't think of that one.
Finally, the reason all those Christians say you can't judge god by human standards is the same rational as to why I don't yell at my dog for not leaving a note on the refrigerator when he takes the car for a spin. You don't expect a dog to understand humans or act or think at our level; how can you honestly judge a being who created the universe?
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
I'm going to assume you're a believer. I'm not. I'm also not the AC from up above, but I agree with a fair bit of what he said.
Suppose a god did "eliminate hunger". So, now the six billion people are nice and full and don't have to worry about starving to death. With all this food but without any restraint, there would be an explosion of births as there is suddenly nutrition to support 12 billion, 18 billion, or more.
(snip)
The same reasoning applies to disease. Disease does a generally good job at population control, this was set in place presumably by god to moderate the effects of a species population explosion.
So what you're telling me here, is that your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god couldn't come up with any better way to keep the population down than through starvation and disease? Mass suffering and death is not a kind way to prevent overpopulation; it's the cruellest possible way - with omnipotence you could just adjust the fertility rate so that excess children wouldn't be born, not bring thousands of children into the world for the few short years they can eke out before they die in agony from hunger or illness.
Do you have any idea how painful it is to die that way? The slightest conception of what a horrific death people go through when they can't get enough food to live? Even if you don't, the god you believe in would have to know in intimate detail how thousands, millions, of "his children" are suffering and dying, and apparently he decrees that this is good? Your god, if he existed, would be a monster.
According to you, if god made us and we are special, then he is evil. But you don't believe in god. So what's the big deal about disease.
He said very clearly at the beginning that despite not believing in god, his argument was that even if god did exist, he would not be a fit object of worship. That the god described is evil, and hence should be reviled, even if he could be proved to exist. To an atheist, disease poses no problem; it's just something that happens and there's no special reason why it shouldn't. But for a believer... well, you have to wonder why your loving god would inflict ebola on the world.
You are correct though, that the animal kingdom is also full of suffering and death that an omni-max creator could have prevented. You say "kept in check by disease" so airily, as if most diseases aren't a horrible way to die. There is nothing in nature that suggests it was created by a kind or benevolent creator; every day animals (human and non-human) die by the million in terrible pain, debilitated by hunger and disease or torn open by predators. Either god does not exist (and all this suffering is just the way things are for entirely non-supernatural reasons) or your god exists but doesn't care, or created a world full of suffering for his own amusement.
Instead of being pissed of at whatever god, why don't you accept responsibility that we do all this to ourselves?
Once again, the argument was not about whether god exists, but what kind of being he would be if he did exist. An omnipotent being can intercede in any way imaginable with no effort whatsoever, if he existed then he would have ultimate power to bring about or prevent any event, so anything that happens must happen because he so chooses. In short, the god you believe in would have to be a sadist (if he existed).
The horrors of hunger and disease are no challenge to the atheist worldview, because they can come about by natural causes, but if you believe in god then the burden is on you to explain why he allows such horrible things to go on if he loves us all so much.
For all that you blame the christian god for every evil, did you never stop and think that perhaps you are not the most intelligent being in the universe.
Who's blaming anyone? I would "blame" the natural world for the consequences that an a