Comment 42 by Schrodinger's Cat

If one envisages an entire universe populated with suffering, struggling creatures......one of countless universes populated with suffering, struggling creatures.....it does start to seem a bit remiss of the entirety of existence to just 'happen' to be that way. Mere 'indifference' scarcely begins to describe an infinitude of this.

That's a point of view. I'm sure you would expect me to say I don't agree with, and I don't! I don't believe one can talk about the universe being indifferent, because indifference is an attitude, and as far as I know, universes don't look like the kind of thing that can have attitudes, unless you are a deist or pantheist of some kind. Being remiss is the kind of things brains do. I consider that describing existence to be remiss is a case of 'meaning leak', assuming that what goes on inside our heads can somehow leak out and be real elsewhere.

I did discover something recently which surprised me, which is that there is not nearly as much suffering in Nature as I thought. I discovered that an awful lot of animals die of old age, not by predation. This is why scavenging is such a good way for carnivores to survive. I hope this is true!

I have to say I'm quite pleased that the universe doesn't have any ability to care about things. What an awful thought! I don't want a life filled with meaning, I want there to be plenty of room for my own meaning. I don't want cosmic purpose, I want to be free to make my own direction in life.

Although it gives many people comfort, the idea of theism, deism or even pantheism seems terribly intrusive to me. I prefer to not be owned by a creator, or be part of some wider essence of mind. It makes reality seem awfully claustrophobic!