James Bond and the argument from design

*is scared of the word teleological*

So I'm just watching On Her Majesty's Secret Service (in which I am led to believe George Lazenby's "voice" is dubbed), and it occurs that me that, whilst it might be possible that some types of monkeys could have hit upon the same deadly ruse as Telly Savalas' Blofeld, i.e. triggering an avalanche by firing a noisy flare, very few would have been able to conceive of, or been able to achieve, Bond's means of escaping the avalanche: skiing, an activity that could only have been conceived of against nature.

We have not yet encountered any animals who ski, independently. To my knowledge, anyway. Without, it should not need to be said, coercion, and a great deal of training.

Or rather: picture a chimpanzee on a dry ski-slope. Suddenly the most ambitious of human aspirations becomes explicable.

Even fewer monkeys would have thought of filming it and showing it for fun, with a thrilling soundtrack. Never mind making a sack of cash while doing so.

Also: we are the only animal (*we have yet encountered*) who thought of bob-sleighing. Which means either that we *are* the great conscious observing, deciding intelligence that the strong anthropic principle required - nay! demanded - the universe should bring about. Or that we are a cosmological dead-end. I dunno...

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

Some nights when I can't sleep, I think about a story by Borges. My favourite story, probably; though, let's face it, us humans managed to tell some pretty good stories while we were here.

Also: The Great Wall of China, by Kafka. That makes me happy. As much as any such thing might be possible...

Cosmological constants you would change if you were a deity who fancied a laugh

3. All of them. And none of them. The strong anthropic principle is worryingly enticing. But wrong, I reckon.

For reasons I'll get back to later...