Guest
tt: chenmy463 ok so i heard of some dumb arguments in a dumb conversation about the weird amount of people mad that incandescent is being replaced by the vastly superior led bulbs, and by far the worst argument i heard is a strange appeal to nature and beauty.. 'beauty is inefficient!' they claimed, and apart from being dumb on its face, because people for some reason think, or pretend that they think, that you MUST buy the 7000K lights now, even though there are and always have been 3000K lights that look exactly like filaments, and are just as dimmable as incandecent....... aaaaaaaaa smh.... but looking deeper into this argument, at least to me, it seems to recognize that this is the case, and that incandacenst is still superior in some way correlated to its inefficency, and it goes even farther to claim, in some way, that beauty in nature, and in lightbulbs, apparently, is a consequence of inefficiency. I think this line of thinking is nice in some ways, because it ascribes a form of thoughtfulness to the world, like it is choosing to seem pleasant to us humans. Unfortunately, i really do not think that this is true in any way or form. A lot of the beauty, especially in nature, comes from symmettry. from the way that: snowflakes form; branching things like veins and tree branches, branch; how segments spiral in plants and seashells and weather patterns and more. even in the beauty we see in art and music, there are rules to form, perspective, scale, intervals, harmonies, and overtones. from when you look at someones face to when u listen to music that u like, there are subconciouss optimization patterns your brain uses to determine if it likes it!! how can people claim that beauty is a consequence of inefficiency when so much of the human experience is governed by processes that were optimized for our enviroment, for example, the range of colors we can see. i think that on a base level, people like patterns in form in the world, and guess what, patterns usually emerge as a result of a efficient and regular process, and yes, i do think that on an intellectual level, people can learn to sorta like stochastic or 'messy' stimuli, but i do not believe that that applies to lightbulbs of all things idk isnt it cooler to realize that beauty is a consequence of the rules of nature and the laws of physics, rather than coming into being despite them?? and if you disagree because you want something to ponder about, then chew on this: are we programmed to believe what is beautiful, due to growing up where these processes caused natural patterns, do people ever choose the things that they find beautiful? i truly do not understand this argument on any level, and i had to talk about it it was so dummm ok anyway the song of the day is: smile - kiryano :
