PDA

View Full Version : Are we a disease?



Betazep
10-27-2001, 12:12 PM
I have argued that we are a disease on this planet. I have held this opinion long before the movie Matrix was released. Do you think that we are or are not? Give supporting argument.

rick barclay
10-27-2001, 12:22 PM
That's an interesting theory, betazep, but don't apply it to
this world; apply it to the universe, because that's where
we're going. I sometimes think we are like a virus. But all the
viruses known to man have proved unkillable--I don't think we
can apply that label to hom sapiens.

rick barclay

Betazep
10-27-2001, 12:27 PM
Ahh... but we shall see. Remember how we are told that people said flying was impossible.... or how we never thought we would get processors up to 2Gig. We may suprise ourselves with the discovery of folding space or something. We might find black holes that are portals to new uncharted territory. Then the disease spreads... then the life continues... in and on new hosts.

:)

Breach23
10-27-2001, 01:03 PM
we are more like a parasite...We need this world to survive, but we're destroying it.

oskilian
10-27-2001, 02:45 PM
well, I have thought about that, but I don't think we are a disease because genetical selection selected us, but wait until the next dominant race (of course there's got to be one) must be even worse than us...

Oskilian

Betazep
10-27-2001, 03:37 PM
That is an interesting way to look at it. You are smart, oskilian. Do you think that we will be our own doom though?

I feel that inevitibly we will kill ourselves off. Not all of us. But if there is only enough food for 1 million people per year someday in the far off future, one billion people would not be able to thrive.

That seems to be pretty much common sense, but perhaps we will find a means to live without food as we know it today by that point.

When does the extensive breeding stop, though? Is it when we are all standing shoulder to shoulder because there is no room to walk or move.

Look at China. They have major population problems....

Flarelocke
10-27-2001, 04:43 PM
If we are a disease, I've got a rope hanging in my garage if you want to do your part to cure the Earth.

Betazep
10-27-2001, 05:01 PM
You bring up a good point. It is part of our patterning to maintain our own lives... and most of us want the lives of our loved ones to be maintained as well.

You want you and your family to live. You may want family of your own someday. Perhaps you will want several children.

I want the same. So do the majority. This is why our population increases exponentially whilst our food production only doubles. The great economic strain that humanity creates for itself.

We value our lives and our ability to live as we wish, which in turn may destroy the fabric of humanity in many many generations to come. It is bitter irony. One that I wouldn't change by hanging myself, mind you. Yet I have always been perplexed by this issue.

My wife wants four kids. Somewhere in my heart, I wish that I didn't have to bring so many bodies in this world... but I sure do love my boy. I envy those that feel this degree of love for many children. It must be blissful. Therefore, patterning inside my very soul wishes for more children, but my mindset is that humans are a disease and we are destroying everything to include ourselves.

Anybody else have valid comments... Let's hear from some of the "No's"....

~Betazep

rick barclay
10-27-2001, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Breach23
we are more like a parasite...We need this world to survive, but we're destroying it.

That's the very reason we're leaving it. The earth is our host,
but it's a finite host and we'll have to find a new one someday
and leave this place to series x4.1.1 and his fellow arachnids.

ick barclay

C_Coder
10-27-2001, 05:14 PM
actually the growth of the population of the world has slowed dramatically in the last few hundred years, people used to have really large families in the past like 10 - 15 kids!!!!! because they werent interested in their carrieer's like modern people and they didn't have condoms lol. Also they had security if they had a large family, they didnt have pensions and such.
Anyway thats me all typed out and most of it's bulls**t.

Aran
10-27-2001, 05:53 PM
humanity is not a virus, it is something far more complex, disturbing, and dangerous.

Natase
10-27-2001, 06:06 PM
I agree that the human race is parasitical... I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. All life-forms exist purely as a way to perpetuate the DNA that they house. Human DNA has evolved and created an almost perfect shell (compared to other earthly life-forms). This is good news for humans... but DNA cares not about the larger host.

I don't want to wipe everyone out or anything... I just hope we don't find a way off this planet before we destroy it.

Aran
10-27-2001, 06:11 PM
The funny thing is that humanity will never end, in essance. This is because when there isn't a human left, there won't be anyone to say "humanity is gone"... it would almost be as if it never existed.

Humanity exists because we are here saying that it does. Words are arbitrary, yes, but this is even deeper than that. If humanity ceases to exist, there will be no one to know that it doesn't exist anymore, therefor it never did exist. IT's all a matter of perception.

Procyon
10-27-2001, 06:40 PM
Humans are selfish and ultimately rather stupid animals, just like the so-called "lower" species. Currently, they are just much more destructive than other species: so I'm not sure if 'disease' is the right word, unless you want to describe all life as a disease. (Although in a different context you could say that life is a sexually transmitted disease...) The only ultimate difference is that humans (eventually) will be able to colonize other worlds, barring global catastrophe. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is not clear.

I should say, though, that birth control is slowing population growth fast: the growth rate has already nearly ceased in Europe, and would be here to if it weren't for Latin American immigration. Once the third-world countries modernize their societies, population growth will cease there too. I think the UN estimate for the peak population, which will occur around the start of the 22nd century, is somewhere around 10-20 billion. Way too damn many, of course, but it could be much worse. And even if not for that, the Malthusian crunch can't be averted forever.


The funny thing is that humanity will never end, in essance. This is because when there isn't a human left, there won't be anyone to say "humanity is gone"... it would almost be as if it never existed. Humanity exists because we are here saying that it does. Words are arbitrary, yes, but this is even deeper than that. If humanity ceases to exist, there will be no one to know that it doesn't exist anymore, therefor it never did exist. IT's all a matter of perception.You don't think other animals are sentient, or even that they could become so with the right evolutionary pressure?

no-one
10-27-2001, 06:51 PM
you people watch way to much TV and believe way to much more of it...

EvenFlow
10-27-2001, 07:02 PM
>>Humans are selfish and ultimately rather stupid animals, just like the so-called "lower" species<<

We are not animals. This is a basic fact of pyschology. The ability to think, cognitive reasoning if you will, is what seprates us from animals. Another separating factor is that animals do not have the ability to plan, nor can animals create tools.

Procyon
10-27-2001, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by EvenFlow
We are not animals. This is a basic fact of pyschology. The ability to think, cognitive reasoning if you will, is what seprates us from animals. Another separating factor is that animals do not have the ability to plan, nor can animals create tools.

The definition of an animal is a multicellular life form without cell walls that obtains its food from other organisms. Humans most certainly meet that definition. Therefore, humans are animals.

Have you paid any attention to any of the work in animal psychology in the past 50 years? Many of the higher primates have been demonstrated to have abstract reasoning skills.

Chimpanzees use tools - for example, sticks to feed from anthills. This practice is passed down culturally from generation to generation. They also plan; in other experiments test subjects were able to stack boxes vertically in order to reach a banana placed out of reach.

Really, do some basic research...

EvenFlow
10-27-2001, 09:10 PM
>>Really, do some basic research...

WELL OKAY THEN I'LL JUST IGNORE ALL MAJOR STUDIES EVER DONE BY PYSCHOLOGISTS REGARDING WHY HUMANS AREN'T ANIMALS . WE'LL JUST FORGET ABOUT ALL THE RESEARCH FROM EVER COGNITIVE PYSCHOLOGISTS EVER FOUND OKAY? HOW ABOUT WE JUST BELIEVE ALL THE ..........ING .......... WE SEE ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL?

Apes do not think - they mimic what they have been taught. Those experiements you talk of in no way demonstrate independent thought. I can teach my dog to sit - hell he should be able to read as well! Maybe he'll provide better converstion that you do. Apes have no self awareness - that is the case with most animals or didn't you know that? Why don't you do some basic research?!

oskilian
10-27-2001, 09:18 PM
I still keep my idea, I really don't think we're gonna be here forever, and we're not going to die for lack of food, because take for instance, some japanese go=uys invented a completely synthetic foon (yuck), but if there's no more food left we're gonna have to

but dinosaurs beleived they would rule da world 4ever, and there's not a single dinosaur alive now, I think natural evolution will move us away (it has to), and I think that the new race will be even more destructive than us

as far as it concerns me, I don't think that wars are gonna kill us, because the world is extremely big, and I don't think you can destroy every cubic milimeter of earth, maybe most major cities would be destroyed, but you can't kill everyone, if you think about nuclear winter, or radiation, I still think the world is too big, and you can't cover everything with something that kills everyone

Oskilian

Procyon
10-27-2001, 10:06 PM
WELL OKAY THEN I'LL JUST IGNORE ALL MAJOR STUDIES EVER DONE BY PYSCHOLOGISTS REGARDING WHY HUMANS AREN'T ANIMALS . WE'LL JUST FORGET ABOUT ALL THE RESEARCH FROM EVER COGNITIVE PYSCHOLOGISTS EVER FOUND OKAY? HOW ABOUT WE JUST BELIEVE ALL THE ..........ING .......... WE SEE ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL?

Apes do not think - they mimic what they have been taught. Those experiements you talk of in no way demonstrate independent thought. I can teach my dog to sit - hell he should be able to read as well! Maybe he'll provide better converstion that you do. Apes have no self awareness - that is the case with most animals or didn't you know that? Why don't you do some basic research?!

Why does this possibility offend you so much?

I can say for a fact that researchers did not march into the African jungle to teach chimpanzees to eat ants with sticks. If you are going to claim the box-stacking study, and others like it, are fraudlent because the researchers previously showed the animals what do to, you're really going to have to provide some serious justification. Also, you haven't even made the most minimum reference to any of these psychological studies you're talking about. I would really like some examples or citations.

As for self-awareness, there's a well-known test for this called the mirror test: mark an animal (with prior experience with mirrors) and place it in front of a mirror to determine whether it is able to infer that it has been marked. Again, chimpanzees pass. However, human children of age less than 18 months do not.

A good place to start your research would be http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online3.html - this site has links to quite a few good articles on the subject of animal consciousness and consciousness in general.

Koshare
10-27-2001, 11:01 PM
yes, humanity, according to evolution was far superior than any animal on earth 4 million years ago. Of course, i do not necessarily believe evolution...entirly

apes are capable of abstract thought, so are dolphins, whales, chimpanzees.

Does that mean apes have a capacity similar to humans, no it doesnt, we have things such as...
most complex communication
extremely complex social structure
males and females are more unique in body structure
we are hairless(very few land mamals are)
males have exposed genitalia
fingers can fashion tools
ability to rapidly adapt to most situations, with intelligence
culture(apes may teach there children how to get ants with sticks, we teach our children how to build spacecraft)



stop watching tv... humans are truly unique, in so many ways.

EvenFlow
10-27-2001, 11:27 PM
>>Why does this possibility offend you so much?<<

It doesn't offend me, I never said it did. Just don't talk to me as though I'm an idiot who knows nothing.

Those tests weren't fradulent. However let me reiterate. Apes are know to be able to use a rock to break open certain types of fruit. Okay so I knows rock break fruit shell, but it does not understand why it does. The same goes for the stick and the ants. It may have happened by chance. An ape picked up a stick and used it to get ants out - so it kept repeating that behaviour which was then mimiced by the other apes and so on. This doesn't prove that it actually understands anything - simple that it can use a stick to get ants. It wouldn't know why this works, only how.

>>As for self-awareness, there's a well-known test for this called the mirror test: mark an animal (with prior experience with mirrors) and place it in front of a mirror to determine whether it is able to infer that it has been marked. Again, chimpanzees pass. <<

This doesn't prove anything other than that the chimp touched its mark. It would not know that the reflection is itself. I doesn't know it is a chimp. Much a like a baby does not know it is a baby. Let's not forget that a baby has poor motor and coordination skills, which must be developed over time. Clearly a chimp would have a higher level of coordination, as they can swing around from a very early age.

>>Also, you haven't even made the most minimum reference to any of these psychological studies you're talking about. I would really like some examples or citations. <<

Okay well I'll find some links for you.

Getting back to what I was saying is that whilst humans and animals may share fact that they are both carbon-based, multicelluar life forms. Indeed, we are mamals, warm-blooded creaturers. But we are not, in animals by strict definition. What separates us from animals is that we are self-aware, can think in abstract terms, and we have a conscience. An animal does not base decisions upon right and wrong, merely on instict alone.

Betazep
10-28-2001, 02:00 AM
>>An animal does not base decisions upon right and wrong, merely on instict alone.

I get what you are saying, and I somewhat agree with you... but you keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Especially with the above statement. I am reminded of the studies they did with Koko and the kitten. It was determined that Koko did know right and wrong and did have cognizant feelings. Koko also used a large degree of sign language to communicate in a fashion that was not any more conditioned than our ability to communicate.

Man vs. Animal is debated by scientists with greater minds than us. So you each will be able to find a considerable amount of facts to support each of your sides.

This is what I think. We are animals. We are of the mammal variety of animals. We are the most advanced and cognizant mammal. We are deeply self aware and have a high degree of free will. We are the dominate species on this planet.

Why I think this. A person that isn't patterned with our training or teaching and that doesn't have a social structure will act without noticible cognizant abilities much like our designation of an animal. Our ability to survive without our social structure and teaching is minimal. (Place a baby in the forest... or even a young child that had no human intervention)

Although... it is possible that we are not animals... but in such a case, many of the species that we classify as animals would have to be considered not animals as well. Since I learned that these species are animals, I accept that I am one as well. Still... I am better than them! :)

mithrandir
10-28-2001, 02:38 AM
>>Our ability to survive without our social structure and teaching is minimal. (Place a baby in the forest... or even a young child that had no human intervention)

Actually there is a famous study regarding the whole 'Tarzan' theory/story. It was found that the child would grow up essentially the same as a normal child, and would still develop linguistic skills (albeit less advanced). I'm not sure of a link, but you could look it up.

Garfield
10-28-2001, 06:12 AM
> Actually there is a famous study regarding the whole 'Tarzan' theory/story. It was found that the child would grow up essentially the same as a normal child, and would still develop linguistic skills (albeit less advanced). I'm not sure of a link, but you could look it up.

Interesting. But I don't think that can be. You see, don't you hear about those stories when mothers abandon babies and then the babies die because they need love? Love and care is essential in the growing-up of a child.

Natase
10-28-2001, 06:31 AM
I can't remember the exact study, but using sign language, scientists taught an ape the meaning of death... they then explained to this ape that it too would eventually die and, hence, cease to exist. How is this different from teaching a human child?

The question is, do we redefine what comprises the difference between humans and other animals, or do we cave and give apes the same rights as people?... property rights etc...

Regarding tools... I think the difference is that humans are able to create tools to aid them in their endevours... simians are only able to use tools... eg, an ape cannot fathom tying two sticks together to get to an ant further away, it would search for a longer stick or give up.

Series X4 1.0
10-28-2001, 08:31 AM
Natase
I agree that the human race is parasitical... I don't see how anyone could think otherwise


I'm not surprised. Other view(s):


A parasite does not take care of others as we humans actually do. A parasite is a primitive life that is using and possibly destroying another life to survive. A life is not a parasite just because it uses land. I don't think we're smart enough to say if the universe is alive or not.

We are all a part of the universe, there are no things such as 'parasites' if you think of yourself as a piece of something bigger than your own life. You are not a parasite for using the universe, the universe is using you.

Mankind can never be destructive or creative because the universe began being dead, mankind can only create life, and life will always cause death. We can not destroy our environment, we can only change it. Think of everything in the world as the content of a huge RAM!



I don't want to wipe everyone out or anything... I just hope we don't find a way off this planet before we destroy it.


You should not even have an opinion, people like you could be dangerous.


Aran Elus
This is because when there isn't a human left, there won't be anyone to say "humanity is gone"... it would almost be as if it never existed.


Life could be created one more time. But it doesn't matter, why would it be untrue just because nobody could see it (and maybe someone would be able to see it after all)?


oskilian
and I think that the new race will be even more destructive than


It's not possible to be destructive in a dead world.

Procyon
10-28-2001, 08:57 AM
I think most of the earlier statements have been covered...

Anyway, the strict definition of an animal is the one I gave before; it's the colloquial definition that excludes humans. You seem to be advocating an alternate definition which explicitly excludes creatures with higher mental functions. First of all, this would include some other species than humans, and second of all in any event definitions with explicit exclusions are not very satisfactory.

Aran
10-28-2001, 09:06 AM
you all know what?

we are not chimps or gorrilas or whatever you want to talk about, so there is no way to tell if they actually do 'think' or if they just act upon impulse. You see, unless you are a chimp, gorrilla, etc. you shouldn't even bother yourself with thinking about it: it is just a waste of your time and mine.

Natase
10-28-2001, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Series X4 1.0
[B]A parasite does not take care of others as we humans actually do. A parasite is a primitive life that is using and possibly destroying another life to survive. A life is not a parasite just because it uses land. I don't think we're smart enough to say if the universe is alive or not.

While there are a few factions that would like to give back to this planet, they pale in significance to those who refuse to give up their wants. Insignificant enough, IMO, to state that the human race does not contribute to the survival of our host.


We are all a part of the universe, there are no things such as 'parasites' if you think of yourself as a piece of something bigger than your own life. You are not a parasite for using the universe, the universe is using you.

I get what you're saying here... you're talking about a larger balance, one we can't even begin to understand... but in the context of the Earth, can you really say that our current course is benificial (to either party)...


You should not even have an opinion, people like you could be dangerous.

*yawn*

Betazep
10-28-2001, 12:41 PM
Wow... this is pretty cool. It is almost a fifty fifty split.

Thank you everyone for participating in my poll. I have gained insight and understanding to a problem that has perplexed me for a long long time.

~Betazep

Camilo
11-15-2001, 11:17 AM
interesting discussion, but I think we are going to be here forever, we are the first generation that is going to be immortal, I WANT TO BE IMMORTAL, that will be great, if you don't understand me, go and pick up the Foudation Series from Isaac Asimov, that one is my humanity, but immortal!!!





Camilo Pino
(last day of High School classes)

GaPe
12-02-2001, 08:42 AM
We are not a disease (humanity)!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know where you came up to this opinion?!

Why would we be a disease??

Yoshi
12-02-2001, 10:48 PM
That's why factories plagued our atmosphere; logging eliminated our forest; Terrorism anhiliated our freedom; and pollution destroyed our lives for what? for their own good! >:(

Stop the logging (at least, stop clear cutting), polluting, terrorizing. :(

------------------------
Engineer223

GaPe
12-03-2001, 01:33 AM
WELCOME to the evolution!!!!!!!!

Kupo
12-03-2001, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by Engineer223
That's why factories plagued our atmosphere; logging eliminated our forest; Terrorism anhiliated our freedom; and pollution destroyed our lives for what? for their own good! >:(

Stop the logging (at least, stop clear cutting), polluting, terrorizing. :(

------------------------
Engineer223

Logging is a GOOD thing. Incase you're easily taken in by enviromentalists, rainforests produce a net profit of NO oxygen.

The only reason they say they do is because people are more scared of suffocating than they are not having a wonderfully colourful cure to the common cold.

The best way to stop global warming is to tie up as much carbon as possible in paper, and in asphalt.

goran
12-03-2001, 02:14 AM
it seems the 'yes, we are' group is in majority so far ...

well, i don't know where did the idea for this poll come from, but if anybody has watched the movie, MATRIX, and followed the dialogues closely, the reason for the 'yes, we are' group being in majority should be very clear. I'm referring to the scene where morpheus is tied up to a chair and his captor (i forgot that guy's name) explains it's understanding of human beings and goes on to compare humans with viruses.

cheers,

Betazep
12-03-2001, 03:11 AM
read the first post

gamegod3001
12-03-2001, 06:07 PM
Humanity is not a virus, nor parasite since a parasite feeds on its host . Early hummanity lived like other animals. unlike a pariste.

Hummans are indeed animals, but we are the most complex, eveloved, smartest. If is was was not for this we would have died long ago. Well apes my pick up a stick, a humman could create a sling shot.

lightatdawn
12-03-2001, 07:01 PM
Why are people downplaying the apes stick as a tool? You aren't seeing past your own human limitations. You see the "slingshot" as the more complex tool and thus you imagine the stick as an inferior, negligable achievment. The fact of the matter is; Apes have no need for a slingshot.

Our species (of animal... Procyon is completly correct on the definition, and on most everything else I have read from him) has survived by its creation of tools. Other animals have the built in tools (so to speak) to do a lot of the same jobs we need to create devices to do. Humans cant fly or breath under water. We are very very weak relative to our size. We move slowly, we hear poorly and we have become so terribly dependant on our "tools" that without them most of us would rapidly perish. Its all a matter of perspective whether you consider our species to be superior.

Humanity in some ways acts more like a parasite than other animals but one must consider this: All animals strive to further their own species by many different means; Two of the most common being:
a) Reproducing
b) Killing or rendering useless other animals that are a threat to themselves

It stands to reason that one species would eventually achieve the "top of the food chain." Would eventually reach a skill and population level where nothing posed a threat to it, and it became the dominant species. This happens to be us... Humans. And it would seem by our actions that we have no greater thought process then any other animal. We still strive to Reproduce and kill things that threaten us. Do you suppose any other animal that may have achieved this status would act any differently? If the earth was filled with billions of bears, do you suppose they would limit the amount of fish they caught in streams during spawning time to ensure their supply of fish remained strong?

Something to think about...

DrakkenKorin
12-04-2001, 07:14 PM
"... Who Are We? Mutations Of Nature's Creation, Rapists, Mass-Murderers of Innocent Species. We Are A Plague, And Nature, Herself, Shall Cast Down Her Own Creations, Into The Wrath That Shall Cleanse The Earth. Father Fire"
Valor Kand, "Man To Father Fire"

--
Don't think I could have said it better myself.

Yoshi
12-05-2001, 09:36 AM
I agree 100% in what you say. Someday, somebody shall wipe out the entire planet to clean the Earth.
----------------------
322reenignE

ski6ski
12-05-2001, 10:19 AM
C_Coder
People used to have 10-15 kids. This was to ensure survival. Back in those days small pox, polio and other diseases would kill your children or disfigure them. This was just one way to make your famly name go on.... Atlest mine did.

zahid
01-09-2002, 04:49 AM
I voted Yes because none but we are going to destroy ourselves.




Originally posted by Aran Elus

You see, unless you are a chimp, gorrilla, etc. you shouldn't even bother yourself with thinking about it: it is just a waste of your time and mine.

If we could judge chimp brain with ours and ours with chimp's, I guess we could get the answer.

IcyDeath
01-09-2002, 05:37 AM
Long time ago people ( and the rest of living beings:rolleyes: ) really were virus-like creatures, that came on an asteroid, which crushed on Earth about few hundred millions years ago. All known life came from these primitive creatures. We should be very happy about this.;)

GaPe
01-09-2002, 02:43 PM
IcyDeath:

I hope you're kidding. If you're not then I'm very concerned about you.

gamegod3001
01-09-2002, 02:54 PM
Realy, why are you conserned. Ever hear of evolotion.

I know of two therory's on how life came about on earth

1. It was formed
2. Small microscopic organisms came along with meter. (rember the metter from mars)