Iteration the Eighth: STUDENT NAME: God. SUBJECT: Intelligent Design 101. MARK: D--

Posted: 26-Oct-2008 12:51
As we have learned, class, it is possible to extract a decent photograph from the cheapest of cameras. This is because camera engineers employ a system that we may call intelligent design. Unfortunately, this system does not seem to have been known to the designer of that ubiquitous, if flawed, entity known as the Human Being. Oh, some sections of creation were clearly done by first-rate students; the cream who went on to become doctors, scientists or those who can deal with flat-pack furniture, and those who came up with such glories as the Great Barrier Reef, kittens and Pont l'Eveque cheese. But we humans obviously got stuck with the thick, nerdy kid who sat at the back of the class, picking his nose and surreptitiously reading a copy of Guns n' Ammo under the desk. OK, some bits of His work come close to perfection - Kylie Minogue's bottom comes to mind- but as for the rest... I mean, would you want to cross a bridge built along the lines of the human spine? Hip joints wear out at around fifty years and hearts tend not to last much longer (on that subject, we quite sensibly come fitted with two lungs, kidneys and testicles/ovaries - redundancy in design is sound engineering - but why only one heart or liver? Was redundancy in these area included in the original spec. and the build went over budget? Or did some of the cash end up in the Cayman Islands? We Should Be Told!) And as for the eye, well it's pretty hopeless. Easily damaged, no zoom function, the aperture adjustment is stuck on automatic and the whole thing has to be fitted with compensating lenses in a vast proportion of cases just to allow it to carry out its basic function. The difference with cameras is that they have evolved. God, it seems (and I make this observation from having watched the actions of His followers), has a hissy fit if anyone even suggests that His design may be flawed. He sulks and sticks His fingers into his ears, refusing to listen to even the mildest suggestion that the appendix, say, whilst great at helping koala bears to digest eucalyptus leaves, wasn't a very clever thing to put into humans. And the designer of the koala was probably none too pleased at having the idea nicked. This obtuseness has condemned millions of people throughout history to a rather nasty and painful death. Come to think of it, our Creator probably nicked the design for Kylie's bottom as well. Meanwhile, the designer of the glass plate camera happily accepted the superiority of roll film, and when the 35mm cassette came along in the 1920s no-one felt the need to nail Oskar Barnack at Leica to anything, even for a short time. Naturally humanities' problems would have been fewer had God been a woman. Less smelly for a start. Women are far too sensible (on the whole) to sulk because someone told them that there could be a better, more efficient way of doing things; they are a rational, logical species (except when it comes to shoes and hair, of course). God could learn a lot from the makers of cameras. And his biggest mistake? Making man in His own image. Could Do Better.

Iteration the Seventh, in which we muse on Wittgenstein, death and underpants

So, why is a washing machine like a camera?
No, this isn’t one of those surrealist riddles to which the answer is something like ‘logic is not representative; there can be no representative of the logic of facts’ as Wittgenstein, the old funster, had it. Nor is the answer ‘because they both have incomprehensible instruction manuals’ which is closer, as the one for the washing machine will be written in Swahili, but still wrong as the camera will come without any proper manual at all.

To find the answer, come with me on a short journey in which we may discover the essence of my contention.

The story begins with a death.

Perhaps I am over-dramatising here, as the death we are talking about is that of a washing machine, but you may well have cried had you seen what it had done to my underpants. A man came, shook his head sadly, directed us to a showroom, and we became the proud owners of a new machine. (A process which was a touch surreal: The engineer came at the time he had said he would come, the people in the showroom were knowledgeable and helpful and delivered when they said they would deliver. Which was one hour, ONE HOUR, afterwards. A round of applause, if you would, for Becks Electrical Centre of Glastonbury).

Be that as it may, we choose a washing machine. We had a choice of, ooh, around twenty of the things, varying slightly in size and colour, rather more in price. The most expensive was two hundred pounds more than the cheapest. All were machines that fall into the ‘basic domestic’ category; not washer-driers, not built to cope with hotel-size loads, just wash clothes.

So why the difference in price? Does the more expensive machine make your underpants £200 cleaner? Can it do extra tasks such as make a nice cup of tea to drink while waiting for it to do the wash? Will it use £200 less power/water/washing powder?

No. To all of the above.

Now look at these two photographs:




One was taken on a digital camera that cost, new, under fifty pounds. The other on a full-spec pro DSLR that would (and did!) absorb a month’s wages. You can probably see where I’m going here.

For basic photography, or basic washing of underwear, a basic machine is adequate. If all you want from a camera is to get a decent snap shot in straightforward conditions, go for the cheapie. I can’t see much significant difference between a modern camera costing £50 and one costing double that. If you do more challenging photography, sport, say, or wildlife, then you will have to spend more. The washing machine we ended up with has 3 dials, 6 buttons, 16 cycles and 10 lights. All of these add to the cost. How many are necessary? Are there really 16 different ways to wash underpants?

Visit the website: http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk

Jon Ryan