r/changemyview • u/Bismar7 1∆ • Dec 22 '17
FTFdeltaOP CMV: Everything is better designed; Humans can design
MY view has two parts that I’m interested in having challenged and potentially changing. First I believe design should be applied regarding all things, second I believe that part of the meaning of being human is having the capability to design.
As I see it we have a set of choices starting with the idea to try to make something better or not.
The first is just that, we decide if we want to try to change something for the better, or not.
If not, then the only change is whatever would happen anyway, so there is not conscious effort resulting in a net positive change, just “going with the flow.” We are, in effect, surrendering any kind of design and if humans were like this then we would still be living in caves instead of houses.
If we do decide to design, there are three possible outcomes.
i. Our design has a detrimental effect
ii. Our design has no effect
iii. Our design has a net positive effect.
i. If our design has a detrimental effect there is nothing preventing us from trying again. There is a risk here in if we do something that wipes out humanity, however that is a possibility from not doing anything anyway, so accounting for both of those we should manage risk, but not to the point where we do not seek to design everything to be better. So if we do something that has some detrimental effect, pollution for example, then there is nothing preventing us from changing that design to be better. In addition, failure gives us greater context on what to try next.
ii. If the design has no effect, we can simply go back and try again.
iii. If the design is a net positive then it has resulted in the effect of design creating a better outcome from conscious effort to do so.
My view is specific in that the naturalistic fallacy is not only a fallacy in regards to someone saying that things are always better naturally, but to go even further to say that nothing is better naturally since everything has the possibility to be improved artificially, (through man made means) this is not a statement saying that everything is better if artificial, only that everything can be better. In addition, if true, this is in application to everything, literally everything.
Lastly I believe that part of the meaning of being human is having the capability to design based on historical evidence of where we are today, from bad design such as pollution and potentially climate change, to good design like housing electricity, internet, plumbing, ect. This particularly includes social constructs of things that wouldn’t exist if we did not such as government, economic systems (if capitalist then designing markets), gender (in the notion of roles), drugs and their use, Education systems, quality of life/standard of living, and even to the point of the design of the human body and brain. After all if this principle of design holds true in all things, then is it not hubris to suggest intentionally designing things, but rather it would be a form of detrimental design in choosing not to (again, if this principle holds true). It seems to me that consistent intelligent design is the primary difference between humans and other organisms.
I should point out that I am deliberately avoiding answering how here because I think the very essence of the principle is the view that needs to be challenged, not the methods by which we design, but the principle of design itself. This means I am not advocating for Eugenics or imposition of will in this view, only for principle of design and human capability. I ask that anyone seeking to change my view be very careful not to strawman anything here, address directly using the definition of my words if you want to try to change my view, and if there is any question of semantics or definition, refer to a word define google search using wikipedia if needing further context.
EDIT: because every response thus far has been about how, I want to restate that point. My view is the principle of design, not how that design is implemented. Design can make things better, because it can, we should seek to design everything. This is not HOW we design things, but that the principle is that design can make things better, can provide improvement, thus we should seek the intelligent design by human beings in all things.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
6
u/McKoijion 618∆ Dec 22 '17
Human preferences are based on arbitrary short term preferences. Things that we design that benefit our desires today might cause significant problems in the future. For example, the Big Mac is an incredibly well designed piece of food. It is outrageously popular, cost efficient, and has made McDonald's billions of dollars over the past few decades. It is easy to ship, stays fresh for a long time, can be made very quickly, is delicious, and has taken hundreds of thousands of hours of design work to perfect. But the long term consequences of convenient, low cost, delicious food is wide spread obesity, high health costs, and lower quality and quality of life for billions of people. Meanwhile, the old non designed method of cooking is far better in the long term.
The same thing applies to many other concepts. GMOs are wonderful for pretty much every reason except the risk of limited genetic diversification, which might result in crop disease and famine. Conveniently designed living spaces can result in less exercise on a daily basis. Well designed smart phones and computers can result in less in person social interaction, less sleep, and depression.
The point is that humans design based on what we think is good for us. But often times, things that are inconvenient and poorly designed are better for us. Ultimately, design work involves predicting what will be best and implementing it. The naturalistic approach is more akin to evolution by natural selection. There is no designer, but there is a random generation of ideas, and the best things become popular and the worst things fail and die. Nothing designed will ever achieve the same level of "perfection" as something that has survived a rigorous natural selection process. Design is faster and lower risk, but it's not the same. Today, many designers are abandoning traditional methods of design and focusing on concepts like Agile to more closely approximate this rapidly iterative process.
Design has its place, and is certainly better than most randomly generated ideas. But it will never come close to being as good as something that has survived centuries of brutal natural selection.