Paradox and Perfection

Paradoxes are problematic logical phenomena. For me they seem to signal a flaw in conceptualizing something. Hence, they beg to be solved. I think people intuitively view paradoxes as problematic. However things may seem, though, I'm not convinced paradoxes are necessarily a bad sign. Some how, I don't remember what led me to the subject, but I was thinking about the development of complex organisms. The issue I was rolling over in my mind was the idea that evolution leads to some species that are much better adapted to their environment than their predecessors. This isn't all evolution is, I realize, but a particular consequence of the evolutionary process in that given enough time complexity in species builds upon itself.

The problem is that evolution can accidentally be interpreted as a process bound for perfection. I think this very problem is another part of the intuitive misconception, however. The reason that evolution never aims for perfection is because evolution isn't a conscious entity It is merely a name given to a process conceptualized by organisms who suspect to have derived from the very process. Furthermore, and vital to understanding all life is that perfection isn't necessary. All that is necessary is "good enough". An organism doesn't need to function perfectly within it's environment to flourish, it very simply needs to function at a sufficient level that is conducive to its reproduction in the environment in which it inhabits.

The reason that an organism, a being so said to be "alive", only needs to be good enough means that paradoxes can arise within the system. Even complex organisms, the organisms that have developed through a long chain of evolutionary processes can inherit and even develop paradoxes within their existence. In fact, I would argue strongly that all life, in any case so based upon the idea of evolution, would ALWAYS contain paradoxes in accordance to its existence. Human beings are an obvious example, and actually the point of this discussion.

Human beings, I think, are rather arrogant by nature. We tend to think we are the cream of the evolutionary crop, that we are perhaps the pinnacle of evolutionary processes. Though we are members of the animal kingdom, according to very well developed and highly scrutinized models of biology, we tend to view ourselves as separate from other animals. We really are the most complex organisms that we yet know of, even as far as we know about the universe (which is actually immeasurably small). So, who's left to judge our arrogance but our own consciences? Still, to say that someone was "treated like an animal" is to say that someone was treated very poorly. To say that someone's behavior is "animalistic" is to say that someone is behaving very terribly - unhumanly. Yet we cannot escape the fact that we are animals and that we are not perfect individually nor are we perfect as a species, we simply got lucky in the evolutionary lottery and ended up as a dominant species on planet Earth.

So that we are imperfect inhabitants of the universe we live within the realm of paradoxes. I'm sure there are many many paradoxes in human life and there is still the potential for more to develop, however, some that have become evident to me, which serve as examples to my post, can be listed as follows: the futility of life, social individuals, justice/fairness, and consciousness.

Ultimation

There must be some foundation from which to realize some form of knowledge. Some base from which we can build upon, yet the truth or realization of reality seems to elude us. Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope, a ray of light that transgresses the clouds. As all doubt collects in the skeptics bowl is there not some function that is pure and evident, even to the skeptic? Perhaps it is that at the most simplistic level we could assert with true, unquestionable certainty that, at the very least, something if anything at all, exists despite the conception of "nothing". At the very least something, whatever it is, exists! To provide "nothing" even with a name contradicts itself. So, now we are at least, at the very minimum, left with the fact that something exists. All possible conception from which this reality, as it can in any way be conceived, inherently implies that something, rather than a contradictory nothing, exists.

Everything else that may build upon that "something" that exists is a necessary probability that actually diminishes as it attempts to describe reality. We start with something (100%) and work our way out (99.999999999 - to the infinite) according to the available evidence we have in support of something to say that it actually "corresponds to reality".

Since certainty exists as allusive, in all specifics, we should persuade ourselves into accepting that a true understanding of reality is not possible, but also not necessary. We don't need absolute certainty, we merely need "good enough". That is, "reality is perfection" and that we are each evolved with a separate level of understanding about the way reality actually is. We shall never comprehend reality, merely a progressive and reasonable account of reality. We are merely adding upon the ".9s".

Disposable Technology

We live in an age where technology advances so quickly that whatever makes it to market is already obsolete. I remember our first computer had a 1 gigabyte hard drive and ran on dial up that was so slow I swear to God that every time I logged in I went a few seconds backwards in time. It also cost about $4,000. In 15 years personal computers have changed tremendously. They are faster and more efficient but their progress isn't limited to a steady pattern of growth. Breakthroughs in computing technology have caused the level of growth in computers to be exponential. Computers are now found in many devices scattered through out your house and their applications seem limitless.

The only problem that I really have with the run away technological growth I've noticed is a practical one. The newest technological devices don't seem to last as long. The quality of the product ensures that the product will last only as long as it takes to get the newest model onto the market. It makes sense to market devices that only last a few years because the growth of the technology depends on the demand. Consumers can buy a computer, cell phone, music player, digital camera, etc. and enjoy it for only a short while because just as soon as you become familiar with the device it will be out dated and it will necessarily be in need of replacement. This necessity occurs in two ways. 1: You are compelled to update your current device because you feel you are lagging behind with the current culture; 2: your device fails and your are left to repurchase the device in it's latest form.

Outdated technology isn't worthless. It still has value so long as it works good enough for the lagger who still uses it. I know that my manual razor had a predecessor that had two blades and one before that which had just the one. It didn't take too long for someone to develop a new razor that has four blades so now my current razor is obsolete. It won't be long before this next one is obsolete either. The next one, I'm sure, will have 5 blades, and once they have put on as many blades as is possible to put on a razor they will make one that tells time or one that reminds you when you need to shave by sending you a text message on your cell phone. I still prefer it if I want a smoother shave because an electric razor, no matter how expensive or "good" it supposedly is, it can never give you as close a shave. The point hidden in all this rambling is that the damn thing still works.

It's actually amazing to think of the ways people have improved such simple technologies. Another example is the toothbrush. What was once a stick with bristles on one end now comes in many different styles ranging from stiffness of bristles, to flexible heads, to vibrating kinds, to ones with tongue cleaners.

Sadly, I cannot say that technology is more or less reliable than it was at any other time because I honestly don't know the statistics. However, the frustration in dealing with expensive devices that do not last long has peeked my suspicion and I can't help but recall the 40 year old microwave sitting in the kitchen still being used as if to spite the Ipod, personal computer, and digital camera I had that each lasted less than 2 years. Each examples of the failure I have recently and irritatingly experienced in newer technology. I know of many people with strangely old microwaves. Maybe it is just that microwave technology is a more reliable technology. There in lies the bias of my reasoning, perhaps.

In any case the demand for disposable technology is evident, whether it is the cause of poor quality products or not. People go through cell phones like babies go through diapers. If people want it then the market will supply it; I just wish that I could feel more confidence in investing a decent amount of my money into some new device without having to worry about how soon it is likely to fail on me. It seems the only glimmer of hope is that people will only be able to accept a lifestyle filled with disposable technologies so long as they do not become too unreasonable. For me that has already passed with so many devices, I'm merely waiting on the rest of the herd to get there.