Don’t opine on what may have been if A had been in different quantity to B or if John had had eggs instead of toast for breakfast.

Doing so is merely the worst type of navel gazing.

Now, seriously, it’s allegoric folks.
Don’t take it litterally, for crying out loud…

Dawkin’s statement, as it seems to assume an ideal world, can only be applied to those living in a country that has appropriated enough of the world’s wealth and power that its citizens can experience their world–and who have the luxury of enjoying life. Not that people in developing countries necessarily despair of life, but the Bengali woman who works 14+ hours per day sewing shoes for Nike probably doesn’t garner the same experience and wonder for life as people like you and I, who’s state, or parents, funded their education. And who have the luxury of arguing philophical-esque questions on the internet.

Life can be an immensely beautiful experience. But it can also be less so. I don’t deny that there is a positive message in his quotation. And I very much embrace life. However, I think that positive little quips and quotes like this are desperately damaging to those who don’t have the opportunity to experience the joy of life in the same ways that we do. They aren’t a small group either–arguably, most of the world lives in poverty. I live in Turkey, which is a reasonably developed country, and poverty is still rampant.

Those living in the States, Canada, UK, Western Europe etc. And especially those who have never left those places, in favor of a less developed country, for more than a month, don’t have tactile experience of this reality. Not to mention that such things are not even expressed on the news networks. Thereby, people probably can’t be blamed for holding naive view points. However, this problem of being disconnected from those members of our world who don’t share our economic prosperity, and thereby, arguably, our potential for experiencing life, must in some way be resolved.

Life will be an unquestionably beautiful experience only when everyone is capable of sharing in that beauty.

Unfortunately, as long as capitalism exists, and cheap, non-renewable energy sources are accessible, there will be no level playing field for the members of our global community.

We could also argue from the Deterministic point of view, by the way of quantum physics, and suggest that your parents gametes had no path but to form you, and in a wealthy country, at that. But thats another argument for another day–which I don’t actually support, even though I can’t yet give adequate rejection of it. I think it just shows us that this issue, when examined thoroughly, is immensely more complicated than originally estimated.

Dawkins is writing from the standpoint of ideals, an ideal world. He is creating a seemingly universal positive image associated with life, but I would argue that such an image is misleading and dangerous, as it causes complacency–unfortunately, a lot of people in the “developed” countries feel that we’re existing in such a place, but a quick look outside will allow us to understand that such a place simply doesn’t exist yet.

Thanks a lot for your discussion.
Best,
Tim

Cheers.

My previous post was sarcastic.

Too bad I wasn’t famous so I can say these things and be considered great.
I thought about this long ago before I even knew about Dawkins