I am sure some people would prioritize their dog over some humans, and nothing as bad as the adult Hitler. Like Donald Trump, for example. I might prioritize my couch. I like my couch. It's been good to me. The dog likes the couch too.

It does seem to be the case that angels are male. Fine by me, but doesn't it piss off feminists that there are no divine female beings?. However, are there not lots of female angels in art?

As for heralds, guardians, harlots (really?), and Satan, where did this come from?

What about Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels and Angels?

Ye watchers and ye holy ones,
Bright seraphs, cherubim, and thrones,
Raise the glad strain, Alleluia!
Cry out, dominions, princedoms, powers,
Virtues, archangels, angels' choirs,
Alleluia! Alleluia!
et cetera

Back in the late 70s, a gay Harvard guy (Charles Shively) proposed that promiscuous sex should be obligatory. If everyone engaged in promiscuous sex, no one would have to do without good sex. Actually, gay men were doing their best already to fulfill the theory of revolutionary promiscuous sex; I don't know what more could be expected of us.

Yeah so what? I don't seem to be troubled by the fact others eat more icecream than I do, why should I be troubled by the fact that others have more sex than me? — Agustino

Because, Agustino, it's your Christian duty to contribute to the supply of happiness, and every man has to do his share. The truth is, you are contributing less sex to the common good than most men. We want you to gird up your loins, get out there, and fuck your brains out like everybody else. It is simply unacceptable that some people should die in want of satisfactory orgasms while others are sitting on the sidelines nattering on about Epicureans.

Given your self-acknowledged physical fitness and business acumen, you are assigned a donated orgasm quota of 10 orgasms per week. Please, no complains. Men your age should be able to produce 14 to 21 orgasms a week in their partners. If you need more incentive, one of our agents can visit you and provide all the incentives you could possibly desire. You should not be with the same partner all the time. Spread the wealth, don't pile it up in one place. (Do we need to say your orgasms do not count against your quota?)

The semen males produce in sexual climax includes chemicals that keep sperm alive, not only in the vaginal environment of the female but in the overall "bonding" of females to males (despite the fact that the cause of death for women is disproportionately men), as well as inclusion of "sub-lethal" pathogens that keep a female alive but in a non-reproductive state. We can call this a neutral adaptation, a positive reproductive reinforcement, or we can call this brainwashing, mind-control. Once again it's not wrong to call it mind-control, but it goes against the desire for a neutral description of phenomena. — darthbarracuda

DB, are you talking about humans or fruit flies here? What you say seems to be true for fruit flies. Some experiments have been done to test the theory that human semen does the same for women that fruit fly semen does for female fruit flies. The results were not what I would call overwhelming.

It's possible, but... https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730313-500-semen-has-controlling-power-over-female-genes-and-behaviour/

This is all caused by the existence of gender — BlueBanana

I doubt that very much.

like shooting fish in a barrel — darthbarracuda

Myth Busters demonstrated that it is easy to shoot fish in a barrel: point the gun at the barrel and pull the trigger. What the bullet doesn't hit, the shock wave will damage.

But who puts fish in a barrel to start with, and who shoots them? Third wave feminists? Apparently this is a common practice, because so many people confidently assert that something is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

People disown members of their families for lots of petty reasons. Sometimes for no reason at all, and don't give it much of a second thought, because you're attention demanding, and they're too self-centered for that. People that get hit hard by that suggestion annoy me. They must have come from some tv family. — Wosret

It isn't clear to me what "that suggestion" is.

A good share of homeless youth are kicked out by their families. This isn't all that new a phenomena; biographies of successful people (that's why they have biographies) in previous centuries mention that the subject "left home" at an early age--left, or was expelled.

I could write for several more hours about all of the oversimplification, prejudice, stereotyping, etc. that that increasingly popular narrative contains. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Couldn't we all!!!

I was an active Methodist up until about 1966 (I was about 20 then). Nothing dramatic happened; I was active in the campus Wesley Foundation in my freshman year, not very active in my sophomore year, then not at all. Just lost interest. Ten years later I got involved in Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), a non-denominational evangelical ministry of, by, and for gay people. I was active in that for several years--it was a way of reconciling "gay" and "Christian". About that time (1982-83) I started moving leftward politically and religiously, got involved with atheistic socialists, and have pretty much stayed there.

MCC is an odd mix of evangelical music, theological salad (bits of everything), informal/formal liturgical practice, and friendship. MCC is international, but mostly in the US. It's an odd liberal/conservative evangelical group, camped on what is for most evangelicals the sharp picket fence of homosexuality. There are something like 225 MCC congregations in the US, some of them fairly large.

In its earlier days (1970s), MCC was decidedly a counter-culture Jesus group. Not exactly hippies (that was over). At the same time homophile groups had organized within the Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran churches. These groups could be campy, but adhered somewhat, at least, to their denominational practice. Most of these groups are still in business too, though reduced by way of success. Dignity was kicked off the property of the Catholic Church (by the two previous popes), but many parishes are now accepting of gay members.

Evangelical worship style has infested many mainline churches, regardless of theological differences.

I wouldn't say she's exactly a homo-hater. — Agustino

Well, what would you call her? A "not-enthusiastic about homos"? A "hetero-preferer"? "Homo annoyed"?

Look, if you are willing to slam the door on your own gay son, you probably are going to feel something similarly hateful when you see two guys kissing.

Her testimony convicts her and her church's teachers.

I believe that the blood of Christ is more important that the physical flesh and blood that I share with my son. Unfortunately, my husband and I know the pain of “giving our child to the Devil.” Those words are sharp, shocking and grim, just as Paul intended them to be when he wrote them (1 Corinthians 5:5).

They are certainly "sharp, shocking, and grim".

I do not doubt that she feels a great deal of pain. For the apportionment of blame, much goes to the organization to which she belongs, and some goes to her and her husband for cultivating their all-or-nothing, black and white, obedience or damnation version of morality. What she and her husband need is a large dose of 360º forgiveness (as recipient as well as donor). Unfortunately, generosity in forgiveness is incompatible with their kind of judgmental belief.

Their thinking is no different than the kind of savage theology practiced by Muslim fundamentalists -- cutting off the hands of thieves, killing women for shaming the family, or throwing homosexuals off the roofs of buildings.

The Bible lends itself to various kinds of thinking. Deist Thomas Jefferson had his Bible (he literally cut out the many passages he didn't like--probably 1 Corinthians 5 ended up on the cutting room floor), while Puritan Jonathan Edwards liked the "sinners in the hands of an angry God" Bible. Jefferson types do not end up in Edward's congregation, and Jonathan Edwards' people don't buy Jefferson's Bible.

People seem to be 'tilted' toward one direction of belief or another (not beliefs specifically, just the flavor--severity or liberality--of the beliefs). The 'tilt' can be exaggerated by skillful (and perhaps quite sociopathic) teachers and leaders. It isn't unique to evangelical Christians, of course. Roman Catholics have their own variety of severe, unbending beliefs.

Life expectancy was so short in centuries past because so many children died in the first few years of life. That drove the average down. Many women died in their late teens, early 20s--the beginning of their childbearing years. Any problem delivery (lots of them are) had a good chance of resulting in death of the mother and/or the baby.

Everybody died of infections at a high rate: Small pox, TB, polio, syphilis, staph and strep infections, rabies, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, pneumonia, influenza, and so on. Then there was cancer and other kinds of tumors, and finally, accidents.

Better prenatal care in Europe and North America improved maternal and child survival. Then (1860- 1875) Pasteur, Lister, and Koch clearly revealed the role of bacteria in infection and discovered ways (antisepsis) to reduce it.

Up until the 20th century, infection was the leading cause of death. Vaccinations greatly reduced death from viral diseases, like small pox, rabies, diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough, antiseptics helped, and finally antibiotics came along.

Men who were not laborers did tend to live longer than their wives. Laborers, on the other hand, had proportionately high rates of death from accident and the aftermath (like infections, blood clots, excessive bleeding, etc.) of accidents. Better safety procedures and mechanization did a lot to reduce accidents.

"Misogyny is in fact equally responsible for all gender based issues. Period. There is no such thing as misandry..." — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The author says she is a Third Wave Feminist and effectively demonstrates the ideological flavor of 3WF. Feminism, some other sweeping 'isms' demonstrates a certain amount of the same sociopathy that very conservative evangelical thought leaders exhibit--pathologic egocentricity, specific loss of insight, general poverty in major affective reactions, and untruthfulness and insincerity

People who go way out into the deep end of ideological extremity (whether it be feminism, marxism, libertarianism, veganism, or what-have-you) seem to take on a pathologically narrow focus, or they have that to start with.

Third wave feminists are not alone in these distortions, but they are out in front of the competition.

By the way, who are these people "other than men" who are raping males? Women? How do they get it up?

One feature of ideological extremists is "simplifying all problems". For the 3WF you quoted, it's misogyny. Misogyny this, misogyny that, misogyny and the other thing. For some gay rights activists, every problem they see is homophobia. Some marxists see the devil of capitalism behind every social problem.

Social/political movements sometimes (usually?) outrun their good ideas. Gay activists would, I think, do well to go back to the late 60s-early 70s gay liberation for inspiration. Marxists would do well to go back to Marx. Feminists would, I think, do well to back up too.

It's a whole series of things, not one thing. Among them...

hand washing and antiseptics
trained midwives
pre-natal care
antibiotics
C-sections can help, but only in surgical setting, and not just for the convenience of the doctor.
better diet (healthier mothers)
breast feeding
better sanitation (fewer infant GI infections)
electrolyte drink (salt, a little sugar, clean water) for infant diarrhea

Stuff like that

Sorry about that. I can be a little dense sometimes. I must have had an attack of deadly literalism.

Franklin might have said sell the sizzle, but I kind of doubt it. First, Google Ngrams reports no use of 'sizzle' before 1840. That probably because nothing sizzled until about 1840. Sizzle has just gotten better and better since.

A blog at Freakonomics says...

Each week, I’ve been inviting readers to submit quotations whose origins they want me to try to trace, using my book, The Yale Book of Quotations, and my more recent researches. Here is the latest round.
Stan Hansen asked:
What about “Sell the Sizzle, not the Steak?” I have heard it many times but never have found where it came from.
The Yale Book of Quotations has this under the name of marketing expert Elmer Wheeler:
“Don’t Sell the Steak — _Sell the Sizzle!_”
Tested Sentences That Sell (1937) — Freakonomics

It is my understanding that when Thomas Jefferson was working on the Declaration of Independence, he had first written "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property" (Locke's big three). I think it was Benjamin Franklin who suggested 'happiness' instead of property.

The pursuit of property, however, is what results-oriented fellows went for, 99 times out of 100.

The computer is clearly another impactful machine with also questionable outcomes in terms of the generalised quality of life. — apokrisis

Computers certainly alter the quality of life, not necessarily in a positive way. But what do we count as "a computer"? Are we counting Hollerith's punch card sorters which go back to the late 1800s? They certainly represented a great advance in data processing. The Enigma machine which was first used for commercial communication encryption goes back to the 1930s, and Turing's machine to decode it were mechanical computers of sorts. ENIAC?

The combination of scientific discovery and its application through invention of new devices doesn't seem to go back all that far. When did this begin -- after the Renaissance? or later, in the 1600s on into the 1700s? This seems to be the era when technology really started to take hold. (Maybe invention preceded scientific discovery in some ways. I suspect that the steam engine stimulated studies of materials and pressure--sort of like rocket science got going after a few rockets went up in the air.

Ya, I'm not sure either. Birth rates in poorer countries are better than they were, but they're still too high. China's growth rate is 0.43% while India's is 1.19% - 2016. In parts of the Middle East it's much higher (they're breeding so fast just to terrorize us).

Nice graph. I do love me a nice curve. Thanks.

Good point. Here's another good point... It doesn't have anything to do with anything--I just came across it in the New York Times review of a book about the several Warner brothers of Warner Brothers movie fame:

“Don’t rule this out as simple heresy, but America might have been happier without the pursuit of happiness.” Unattributed. Might be a Warner brother, might be the author of the book, might be the book reviewer. Don't know.

Are you sure we are out of it?

Writing?

Photography was pretty important --1839-- without it, scratch cameras, movies, Kodak, great and fine art photography, snapshots, porn, and National Geographic.

The first high-speed communication invention was the telegraph (and Morse Code)--that was in 1834. 25 years later, President Lincoln was hanging around the War Department's telegraph room to get the latest (and unfiltered) reports.

Gunpowder transformed a lot of lives, many of them right out of existence. Still works wonders.

The sail, was around 5500 years ago. Boats? That was big, wasn't it? (5500 years ago was the age of a tablet found in Kuwait depicting a two-sail ship.)

than what?

Electricity, Crop Rotation, Sanitation Systems, Penicillin, Printing Press, Mathematics, Haber Process, Fire, Steam and the Internal Combustion Engine are all life changing technologies.

The printing press was a critical invention, no doubt. So was the steam engine and electricity. The Haber Process might be a sleeper, along with sanitation. These two probably have lengthened life for more people than modern medicine has.

Bazalgette's London sewer system (1866) was tremendously transformative, but so was the Victorian urban dweller's tolerance of their own feces. The Romans, however, beat Bazalgette by about 2000 years. The Romans valued sanitation, but we probably wouldn't find the Roman baths all that inviting -- the bath water was pretty dirty.

The iPhone isn't that big an innovation. Apple combined phone, radio, and electrical technology--all a century old--with computer technology.

Now she obviously has some problems with her son and doesn't agree with the path he has chosen in life, and is obviously hurt by this. She doesn't appear to have any kind of poverty in her affective reactions, be insincere, incapable of love, etc. — Agustino

She's sincere, I suspect. If a belief system can be "sociopathic" (the term applies to persons) it's for providing a strong incentive to disassociate herself from her gay son. She's a homo-hater, encouraged by her religion. I get that she may be hurt and disappointed in her son -- at least as hurt and disappointed as her son is in her.

There really are good hearted Christians who walk the walk. Religiosity most often is a product of upbringing and geographic origin, not some organic brain dysfunction that leads to sociopathic tendencies. — Hanover

Of course there are good hearted Christians -- millions, I would guess. Yes, religiosity is indeed most often the product of upbringing (and maybe geographic origin). But good heartedness doesn't rule out

some organic brain dysfunction that leads to sociopathic tendencies — Hanover

And no, most fundamentalists and evangelicals are not sociopaths -- an army of sociopaths would surely tear itself apart. It's among the small numbers at the top where one will find the really twisted sisters. And they will also show up among the most outspoken.

You're firmly planted among your kind, and I can see no reason how'd you justify serious debate with the sociopathic right. — Hanover

Indeed, this is about the dangers/nuisance value/problem of the sociopathic right, not a request for a dialog. The kind of conservative i like to read and hear is David Brooks.

If the question to you really is whether evangelical Christians are sociopaths (i.e. cuckoo birds), don't expect them to seriously engage you. — Hanover

Like I said, it's the leadership and the most rabid followers that are likely to be pathological. Most Christians--Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox, can be understood by reading Kierkegaard's Attack on Christendom.

Money mindedness is pretty common among all religious, pretty much. Most churches are effectively real estate operations. The needs of the edifice drive the congregation. Only the richest, most endowed of congregations can afford to put service before building maintenance. Then there are the clergy who, in many denominations, are well paid. Our congregation spends at least $110,000 on the senior pastor and $45,000 on the assistant pastor. They are well paid; neither of them have what I would call difficult jobs.

There are a couple of pathologies among many religious:

For one, they like tangible assets -- the very kind that Jesus said we ought not store up where rust and thieves might get at them.

For another, they really don't like the poor getting too close. They are willing to give a little to the poor at a distance, just don't knock on our door. (This is also a direct contradiction of the Gospel.)

For three, there is a disconnect between the Gospel and what many churches focus upon. The church is usually more of a fraternal organization than a group preparing for the Kingdom of God. I like the fraternal aspects of the church; it feels good. That, in itself, isn't a bad thing. It's when there isn't much more that it becomes a problem.

The pathology here is 'disassociation' rather than sociopathy.

I did read your reply in the other thread which had risen about to my eyebrows, and is now over my head. Thanks, however, for your further comments.

One of my sisters (maybe all of them, I'm not sure) migrated into the camp of the fundy-evangelicals decades ago in the form of Missionary Baptists. Their theology is pretty rigid; I've been sent to hell for various short comings, including not accepting Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Being Lutheran isn't enough. "They don't really believe in Jesus." Then there's homosexuality. (If she knew the actual depths of my theological depravity she'd probably not speak to me again.)

She is up to date; she doesn't practice faith healing--she believes in scientific medicine. She has a computer and a smart phone. Otherwise, there's no evolution, no big bang, etc. All that is "anti-god".

Pew Research: American Exceptionalism.

Religion is significantly less important to Europeans than to Americans. Just over half in the U.S. (53%) say religion is very important in their life, nearly double the share who hold this view in Poland, which registered the highest percentage among EU nations polled in 2015. In France, only 14% consider religion very important. Globally, there is a strong relationship between a country’s wealth and its level of religiosity. Nations with higher levels of gross domestic product per capita tend to have lower percentages saying religion is very important in their lives. However, the U.S. is a clear outlier to this pattern – a wealthy nation that is also relatively religious. — Cavacava

The US may have a very high level of GDP, but very large numbers of Americans (as a group and individually) have a very small share of that largesse. A lot of Americans are both relatively and actually poor, so the correlation holds between poverty and religiosity.

Here are the most salient of the 16 characteristics of sociopathy referenced in the Psychology Today article: (my emphasis)

Superficial charm and good intelligence
Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations

In other words, evangelicals who display sociopathic features are not outright 'crazies'

These seem quite significant:

Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love
Specific loss of insight
General poverty in major affective reactions
Untruthfulness and insincerity
Lack of remorse and shame

Would you elaborate a bit on this, please.

I don't think it's illusory tout courte, but that its reality is inextricably bound up with your perception of it. — Wayfarer

I accept (and have articulated in the old forum) the idea that "the real physical world" which we perceive is one step removed (at least) and the reality which we construct in our minds, might not be exactly as we think the real world is. It could be somewhat different, but all animal constructions of reality, including ours, have to correspond enough to the real world. Too far from enough, and sensory perception would have failed at the beginning a few billion years ago.

Organisms have to pick up good information to find food and mates, defend themselves, and (sometimes) build a nest, a burrow, or a house. Older and simpler brains evolved to do this. Mechanisms developed to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel. Some animals sense magnetic signals; migrating birds, for instance. Homing pigeons have fairly straight forward mechanisms; one of the two methods employs tiny bits of magnetite in part of their brain. They can sense the pull of very weak magnetic fields. Some bacteria also have this feature, which enables them to align their movement to magnetic fields.

That brains have developed complex mechanisms to accomplish necessary means for the end of survival bothers some people. Upon learning that the brain uses chemicals to effect certain feelings, like love, they jump to the conclusion that the mechanism of oxytocin IS love. Ah, so, just snort a dose of oxytocin and you'll suddenly love... whoever happens to be handy.

The object of one's affection, and the affection and desire, usually come first. The baby is born, the mother takes him in her arms; the baby sucks her breast. Oxytocin floods both their brains, and the father's too if he is on hand. Oxytocin isn't what is happening, it is how it is happening. (and it isn't a forever thing, either.)

I think the more radical point is that 'exterior' is also a perception. I hasten to add, I think it's a veridical perception. But when we do see 'reflected light from a surface' - there's no actual light inside the cranium; light doesn't actually penetrate. The sensory organs process sensations including smell, touch, hearing, and combine them by the process called 'apperception' into cognitive wholes. But these are cognitive events, still. — Wayfarer

Of course there is no light in the cranium. I don't think I suggested that light penetrates into the back of the brain (or for that matter, the front).

... his analogy is that the objects we see around us are like the way we 'interface' with reality, but that they're no more intrinsically real than icons on the desktop of a computer, — Wayfarer

I get confused here. Is he saying that the objects that we perceive are no more than pixels on a screen that appear to resemble file folders--but are not?

So if I hear a bell, see a tree, feel a thistle, smell a flower, taste a grape, I am not experiencing bells, trees, thistles, flowers, grapes? I'm just getting good vibrations, per the Beach Boys, and my clever little brain puts together something it chooses to name bell, tree, thistle, flower, and grape? It's possible that I could think I was eating a grape when I was actually eating his red tomato, previously located 1 meter from his eyeball.

If we think there are subatomic particles composing the parts of the atom, and that these parts and the atoms themselves contain forces, and that atoms attach to one another in systematic ways to form molecules, and molecules and atoms line up to form crystals, and so on up to sequoias and whales, are we then to say... that all the stuff is illusory?

Animals (we'll do plants another time) that do not deal in desktop illusions, have to see the real world to survive. The beetles landing on the brown, slightly bumpy, glossy beer bottles are actually seeing brown, bump, and gloss which is what they evolved to see. Flowers that look like like a female pollinator have to really look like one (and smell like it too) or the male bee wouldn't try to mate with it and in so doing, pollinate it.

People do not get bitten by snakes and eaten by alligators in Houston as much as they would if their perceptions and estimations of shape and movement weren't fairly good. (When perception and estimation of shape and movement isn't good, and one is standing in a swamp, one is likely to undergo death in a strikingly unpleasant way -- none of it illusory.)

Why not just be eaten by the tiger so we can become part of the tiger? — MikeL

The tiger eats you to enhance its fitness to reproduce.

There isn't any "reason" for any creature to reproduce, other than sex feels good and eggs get in the way of the sperm race. Reproduction results.

Yes. Timely observation.

An avocado tree could just as well wrap bread around a skinless fruit and put the chicken where the otherwise useless pit is.

Sandwiches on trees isn't such a new idea. The Norwegian immigrant song sings about Oleanna -- not to be confused with the David Mammet play -- something like Minnesota - where roasted piggies walk around asking if you'd like a slice of ham. We used to sing this in grade school. It warped my view of reality. There's a large statue of Ole Bull, the author, on the Minnesota State Capital grounds.

Then there's the hobo's Big Rock Candy Mountain

Seeing is believing, or is it "believing is seeing"?

Does it make a difference in one's reception and comprehension of Hoffman's talk that he talks only about vision? Does his theory work as well when we take the other senses -- hearing, touch, smell, and taste? Is there a difference in seeing a train, and hearing, touching, smelling, even tasting the train? Are smell, taste, touch (including feeling the vibrations of the train), and hearing more immediate, less mediated/interpreted? Certain pollinators can be fooled into 'mating' with a certain orchid because it looks like, and more important, smells like a female.

It can be difficult to explain to a rank novice that the icon on the desktop (screen) is and is not a file. The file is in the box under the desk, and it is just a long string of numbers located on a spinning disk. Before the WYSIWYG interface, people used DOS and there was no illusion that a "file" was sitting "on the desktop". The file was clearly in the box. It was clear that you were asking the computer to fetch it up and display the characters of the file on the screen. (The screen always looked the same, however the print version would look.)

Another situation where "the medium is the message"?

I agree, though I do not at all like it, that "what we sense" (eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin, body) is not reality itself. Objects are exterior, and especially when we look at them, we are only seeing reflected light from a surface. However, if you hit an object with a stick, it makes a noise which you hear. Then you bite it and you learn more about it's nature--how hard or soft is it, is it gooey, stringy, or solid? You taste it; you smell it; you feel it. If you eat it and immediately vomit, you have learned something more about it. When our brains combine all of our senses to render it's representation, we have come closer to the reality of the object.

Eating the tomato is not like using a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) computer interface.

Are TED talks having the same effect on people's thinking that PowerPoint is thought to have? All theories are presented in short, sweet punchy form. Jill Bolte Taylor's TED Talk about her massive stroke is quite moving. However, in the book she explained that her experience of having the stroke (which she presented in her TED Talk) wasn't available to her. She reconstructed what it was like with the help of neurologists, psychologists, et al.

Quite understandable. I don't feel defrauded at all. The real story is her 8 year rehabilitation program that enabled her to overcome the massive damage and return to Harvard as a Neuro-anatamist. The punchiness of her talk is, none the less, slightly misleading.

I won't elaborate more because I'd like it to be answered in all ways you can think of without being affected by anything I say, or maybe other people's comment. — Cynical Eye

Have you not affected what people will say by asking the question? Put up or shut up: What do you think the world lacks? (But it is an absurdly open-ended question. Perhaps it is the case that the world lacks nothing. How can 'the world' which is a box of every thing be missing any thing?)