Printable View
thats what we are is very complex, emotional, thinking, breathing bacteria
we continue to reproduce until we cover the entire planet
im not saying thats all we are
but you can think of that any many different ways
it just goes to show how everything in the entire universe is connected and alike
u must be blazeddd dude. Were all constructed of DNA were to complex to be a bacteria. Everythings constructed of some strain of DNA. Thats what allows natural selection to happen.
of course i am but dude science isnt real
you just got hit a joint and take a walk outside to figure that one out
but i dont mean a fungus-like bacteria that creeps around
we are bacteria, in that we act as bacteria
think about it. (most of this theory from joe rogan)
bacteria reproduces-its main goal in life
and it just keeps growing
and its never alone
if its alone it eventually dies out
people cant be alone either, we must be around other people
we need family and friends
when people are bad they go to jail, away from other people to be lonely as punishment
but even in jail we arent alone
if you become truely alone you become sad, lonely, depressed
and want to kill yourself
bacteria, when attacked, becomes stronger and more immune to what tried to harm it.
as do we.
if you were a completely other life-form flying over Earth that is all we would be seen as
a bacteria like species crawling around the earth , growing bigger and bigger
until we cover this earth and must move on to a new planet
Nah I think we're more of a Virus. No other animal on this planet does as much harm to their surroundings as we do. We're a parasite. All we do is take. And to think, the best way to get rid of this "virus" is by another virus, say the influenza virus.
so ur saying u hate the human race?
u hate urself?
I was going to write exactly this... we are a virus that is killing the earth. Soon we will accomplish it. The earth will die, and us too. Sad but true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis Chron
We're not hurting our environment. We're just changing it in a way that has a negative effect on our health. We're a catalyst for change, as is everything else when thinking of it from outside of the human perspective. No forces are evil. Now I gotta get another bowl in before i get to sleep
If we're heating our plant up w/ greenhouse gases, polluting our air, hastening the extinction of certain animal species, melting the polar ice caps, and changing the sea levels, we're hurting our environment and those that other living organisms depend on. It's just happening in slow mo in comparison to, say, throwing trash out of the car window or spewing exhaust into someone's face.
Not sure why the OP didn't use the term "organisms" in place of "bacteria." Bacteria are fairly simple organisms. We're a lot more complex.
but are we TRYING to hut our earth?
no.
a virus's main goal is to infect the person. it tries to.
were just doing it by..i guess u could say by accident
an accident that we are aware of
when we starting burning fossil fuels we didnt realize what it was doing until it starting taking effect.
and by that time it was too late to just stop
and now we are taking a change and were trying to find better ways for energy and cars and shit
theres just so much going on that its not gonna happen over night.
i dont know why so many people are against their own race.
were all the same thing living on the same planet
were not bloodsucking viruses that intentionally destroy this early
thats like calling urself out.
by posting that theory of our connection to bacteria i was pointing out just another example of how every single thing in this universe is connected and is one.
everything is the same thing working together.
we live in a beautiful world, full of beautiful people with amazing minds and capabilities.
of course there are evil people on this earth
but they just took the wrong path and choices in life and will eventually be picked out of the gene pool
if everyone would just realize how alike we all are to eachother then we would achieve peace
every person was once a baby that was born onto this earth with no knowledge of anything
and everyone learned and grew
we are all the same thing as diverse as we are
if we would realize that we all should be working together as ONE. not as separate countries always prepared for war.
if we would just look around and realize this we can work towards goals
one famous saying "Man's worst trait is the ability to think"
animals dont think as complex as we do and you dont see them having wars or any major problems at that
in fact they work together to make their lives better
but we can think and everyone needs to do it
imagine peace.
not a soft, everybody hugging peace.
there will always be conflict as long as we can think
but imagine a world with no nations
just land with leaders that are united and people that look at other people as themselves
and people treating people how they want to be treated
with that we could work together to do ANYTHING we can learn all our questions about the universe, we can cure all cancer and diseases on the earth as if we just rid this planet of germs
we could figure out why were here.
I don't think I would quote Joe Rogan to try to validate anything I was saying. Anyways, the way i see it is that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Whatever we do, all the elements are still there. All our pollution isn't gonna deteriorate in our life span, but it definitely will have enough time after we are dead. The earth will out survive us, not the other way around. Our entire existence is nothing to the planet, it got through the dinosaurs, so now it's just putting up with us for the time being. After we are gone, it will have a nice rest until some other species becomes dominant. Not saying we should keep polluting, it's gross, but come on, it's really not gonna matter in the long run.
Endangered species going extinct? You all have no idea how many creatures that have lived and gone extinct over the course of the planet. While it's sad to see species disappear, it's the course of the planet and while we may hasten the demise of certain species, they are gonna die eventually. Sometimes I get the feeling that we want species preserved so our world stays the same and unchanged and our kids can see if the same as us, but while it seems it's the same, it's a constant changing environment. I used to be a geology major that really gave me perspective on the unsignificance of how short our lives. Alright I'm running out of steam, haha! :stoned:
We aren't bacteria, viruses or parasites. We are like all other lifeforms in that our natural tendency is to reporduce and expand to fill our environment to the extent possible. One difference is that we have a much greater capacity to change our environment than other creatures do, and we have no natural barriers to our expansion, so we have a great capacity to cause harm to our environment and other creatures that share it. The other crucial difference is that we have a capacity to recognize that problem and do something about it. Bacteria, viruses and parasites cannot do that --- they often kill their hosts. Hopefully we are enough different that we will not kill our host.
Actually we are destroying our environment, and quite quickly I might add. Most people don't realize just how delicate the ecosystems of the world really are. For example, you take the Wolves out of their ecosystem, its prey, Caribou and Elk's population skyrocket without a predator to keep it in check. As time goes by, without the Wolve to purge the Elk population of the weak and old, these less than perfect genes spread its way through the population and weaken.
These type of relationships, literally millions upon billions of creatures relying on something to survive, an intricate food WEB of relationships. If you snap one line of web connecting certain organisms the web itself grows weaker. It has taken Billions of years for these intricate and complex relationships and dependencies to form, and it's taking us literally decades to destroy them.
So yes, we are destroying our environment. Maybe we're subconsciously destroying it, but there's no debate that we are. Secondly, no it is not going in Slow-Mo, it is going in hyper speed. Considering how old this earth is, and how long these ecosystems 'have existed, we are destorying it in a snap of the fingers.
The way I see it, the human species is way overdue for a major population reduction in some form or another. We are approaching carrying capacity and eventually we're going to kill eachother trying to maintain a perfect homeostasis for individual selves, or a "Natural Disaster" will occur. Be it virus, asteroid, earthquake, volcano, tsunami, whatever.
Ghengis, I agree with you on the pace of our destruction of our environment, and I am afraid we'll pass a tipping point soon and lose everything good about this earth. But I also think we have a chance if we wise up soon to save ourselves and some of our environment. It's a close call as to how it will turn out, maybe 50-50 odds at best.
This is exactly how I feel. We may be more complex than a virus, but we act just like one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis Chron
I'm sure I read somewhere that we are made of bacteria, basically every single living cell in our bodies is biologically a type of bacteria. The type of bacteria that we are made off is, according to modern theories of evolution anyway, exactly the same stuff that made the very first living creature that swam this earth, or evolved from a pile of dinosaur shite, or even farther back than that back ferments of the froth of genesis. I think that's right anyway. You can better check The Web of Life (Capra). In any case the fact that we are made of bacteria is the least mind boggling fact about our existence.
Yes, we do have certain bacteria in our bodies, some harmful and some helpful. I don't think we're completely made up of bacteria. I think were made up of certain natural elements, carbon in particular
Its true, we've taken our gift and completely thrown it away specifically in the name of greed. We assumed we were great, we assumed we were seperate because we could think different thoughts at the same time, but we never thought that we were thinking AT the same time, and everything in the universe was happening at THAT same time. Its gone way too far....we've destroyed everything, and I guarantee you there is no turning back. A lot of people may think that its not so bad. But holy shit, is it bad. It is bad. But it is real at the same time....we are just a small part of this reality man...we'll be over and done with before anyone knows it...and if people continue to live their lives looking for the next thrill and always waiting, or even always searching....there might still be a fear when the end does come....but perhaps the end of existance of humans at this point need to be wiped out....all things that do not flow or adapt, die out. its a part of evolution. We are not treating the evnironment as a beautiful glorious wonderful pearl, as it is. We are treating ourselves, how we want. When in reality, its not about ONE person EVER. We are not working ourselves in with the universe, how we should. Since that is what we are of. and a part of. We do not adapt with reality, therefore we will die out.
Never Quote Joe Rogan, I agree. But, Bill Hicks is a quotidian quote supplier in these parts.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are.
-Bill Hicks
" Go back to your rutting once we figure out this 'FOOD/AIR' deal"
i have to agree with Jouryokujin, we are not "hurting" the environment because an environment is not an entity to be hurtQuote:
Originally Posted by birdgirl73
an environment is simply a state of being, and our actions change the current state of being on earth.
is the environment on venus (totally hostile to earth-life) "hurt"? is it "dead"? No, of course not, it's just an environment and thats the way it is.
Whether we like it or not, someday the human race will be extinct along with all other species on earth and there will be new environments, maybe new life-forms, maybe not. Maybe new intelligences (as we know them), maybe not. Whatever happens, it will be no more or less valuable and beautiful than the current situation.
"Actually we are destroying our environment, and quite quickly I might add. Most people don't realize just how delicate the ecosystems of the world really are. For example, you take the Wolves out of their ecosystem, its prey, Caribou and Elk's population skyrocket without a predator to keep it in check. As time goes by, without the Wolve to purge the Elk population of the weak and old, these less than perfect genes spread its way through the population and weaken."
Au contraire, Genghis Chron. You fail to realize just how durable, indeed, indestructible the ecosystem is. The ecosystem as a whole, I mean. The ecosystem of ecosystems. For every depleted ecosystem there will be one to replace it.
we are bacteria in the sense of how we see bacteria, we could just be the bacteria to something bigger.
we become bacteria when we die? right...?
but even then we still serve a purpose. unless you get burnt. even then your purpose is served by providing people who have life to continue life.
You know what we mean when we say we're "hurting" our environment. Why would you feel the need to correct someone on that? The fact is, we as a species, are detrimental to the varius environments throughout the world. That's the fact. It can't be denied.Quote:
Originally Posted by TurnyBright
Indestructible ecosystem? I really don't think you know what your talking about. It has taken thousands, billions, of years for these ecosystems to develop, and in a blink of the eye, are being destroyed. Do you have any evidence to back up this "ecosystems are indestructible" claim?
I've been thinking about this idea for a while now and am happy others are contemplating :D. I like to think about it in terms of evolution, specifically through the theory of natural selection. I agree with the fact that one primary difference between humanity and the rest of life is our ability to recognize and possibly ammend the situation. The entire problem is that it's not happening. Almost every other living organism reachs some sort of equilibrium in its evolutionary path. There is a pattern of offspring and death that evens out a population and keeps the species in line with its environment.
...Now i know this is going to be a big downer, but think about cancer. A free radical, small cell acutally part of the victims system, pops out disformed, exhibits abnormal behavior. It reproduces voraciously, also bypassing key cell control checkpoints like "if the cell doesn't have proper food supply, it dies". Cancer doesn't do that, it spreads, fucks up the environment, without a second thought. So do we. I think humanity AS A WHOLE is a free radical. If it was mandatory for people to take philosophy, maybe that wouldn't be the case. I emphasize "as a whole" because obviously not everyone is part of the problem, some are trying to fucking hard to make it right, to convince others of making it right. Too few, too late.
EDIT- btw, Bill Hicks is one of the most insightful, truth spitting men of this age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis Chron
There is incontrovertible evidence as to the indestructibility of the "ecosystem."
An ecosystem is nothing more than a stage upon which biotic factors interact with abiotic factors. "Ecosystem" is a word with no direct physical meaning, it is simply a label for a very general sort of natural earthly phenomenon.
The word seems to have come to mean "place where plants and animals can live without being killed by human garbage or human interference," and this is simply not accurate, as the human race is OBVIOUSLY part of the earth's ecosystem just as much as the rocks or the grass or the tapeworms are. This leads me to believe that there is no validity to the claim that human conceptions of "right" or "wrong" or "nice" or "weak" or "strong" or "detrimental." There is only what survives and what does not, and that is an inarguable rule of the natural world.
Human beings, as surviving members of earth's ecosystem, have naturally struggled to our current status as reigning large animal on the planet (in our eyes) through the seemingly impenetrable forces of nature that exist solely to our "detriment." We got here by destroying (replacing) that which could not be adapted into our lifestyle. We have made our ecosystem at the expense of every ecosystem on earth which does (or did) not include us.
It is true that current actions by the human race to increase comfort and allow for population and modern living are irreversibly and drastically altering the ecosystem of which we find ourselves living, and it is this ongoing alteration that you label the "hurt" we're putting on "our" environment.
It is not OUR environment. It is THE environment, and it will stay that way whether human beings are around to grok it or not. As the character Ian Malcolm put it, life will find a way. Whatever a closed-minded scientist will tell you, there are no defining characteristics an environment MUST possess to sustain life. Oxygen, which is indispensable to human life, will stifle and kill obligate anaerobic organisms.
When we've altered the environment so drastically that our species and possibly many others fall into extinction, life will either persevere or die out and redevelop by whatever process it arose in the first place. You can count on that.
What you basically explained is whatever is contained in a defined area is an ecosystem. In the sense of technicality you are correct. Of course you should assume when people refer to ecosystems being destroyed, they refer to the contents and quality of an ecosystem.Quote:
Originally Posted by TurnyBright
In order to have an ecosystem, it must be inhabited by some form of life. To say there is no defining characteristics an environment must possess in order to sustain life. Um dude, outerspace. Have you seen plants growing amongst the matter? Perhaps they're boogey man flying around the milky way. Of course there needs to be an environment that fosters chemical reactions in order for an ecosystem to exist.
As long as that it contains living organisms, an ecosystem will exist. If there is no life, there is no ecosystem. Perhaps you are refering to the flexibility of how an ecosystem adapts to changes in the environment, I very much agree with you with case example Mt. St Helen when various ecosystems were altered by contents within being destroyed. Thanks to the general atmosphere where wind can bring seeds to foster new life, if you take away the atmosphere, there is no life. That's proven dude.
What is the atmosphere? The basic necessity of life, or simply a conglomeration of random gaseous chemicals that all are mixed up on the surface of this planet by coincidence and a complicated series of chain reactions?Quote:
Originally Posted by thcbongman
You seem to be reasserting the fallacy that oxygen (or any particular element or molecule or chemical reaction) is vital for the development of life. Without a clear sense of the nature of "life" itself, how can we distinguish the requisites for it's development? There is no satisfying definitive explanation for what life is, beyond no-meaning dictionary phrases such as "the principle or force considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings."
So yes, for any area to be considered an ecosystem, there must be life interacting with non-life, but since we have no way of knowing what matter is in fact "alive" and what is not (except for how it aesthetically appeals to us), not only is every existing ecosystem fully replaceable, but areas that are obviously not ecosystems must always be considered potential ecosystems. After all, life developed from non-life at some point, another thing we don't understand that could easily be happening constantly across the universe in a multitude of different (and mostly unrecognizable to us) ways.
I think that when people talk about "the environment" or "hurting the environment" they are talking about the rich, diverse, balanced natural environments that we have known in the past. We are talking about the environments that we value, not some kind of accademic definition of what the word "environment" means.
It's true that any given place in the universe at any givien time represents some kind of "environment," regardless of whether it is conducive to life or not. The surface of the moon, the center of the sun, a meadow, a city, a diverse forest full of life, a productive farmland that was once a diverse forest full of life, a poisoned wasteland that was once a productive farmland --- these are all "environments." But there are some that we human beings value more than others.
So it is true that human beings are part of the environments that humans inhabit. And it is humans, not nature, that place value on one environment over another.
When we talk about hurting an environment, we are talking about degrading an environment that we value into one that we don't value. In the end we are talking about hurting ourselves by losing something we like or need. Most people can easily recognize an enviornment that has been "hurt" and have no need of an academic definition that quibbles over whether or not an environment that we subjectively feel is degraded is still technically an "environment" or not. I mean, come on!
I have no fear that human beings will completely wipe ourselves out --- we are too resourceful for that. But I do fear that we could degrade our environment to the point were a lot of us do die, and the survivors have to live in a world that is a LOT less appealing than the one we live in now.
Even if we do wipe ourselves out, I don't fear that we will wipe out ALL life --- the life phenomenon is too resilient for that. But the rich diversity of life could be lost --- it is already being hugely diminished.
And even if we did manage to wipe out all life on our planet, it is technically true that we would not completely destroy "the environment."
But I think almost anyone can easily see the differences between living in the rich and diverse environment that we live in today, versus a diminished environment in which most of us are dead and the survivors have to struggle, versus an environment in which we are all dead and only bacteria fungus and insects remain, versus a sterile radioactive wasteland environment.
Fallacy? For someone did not offer any cognitive proof that life can exist without factors facilitating the bonding of elements, you sure got a lot of reassurance from abstract concepts that have no scientific foundation. You reject centuries of studies for an idea that based on the rejection of all science since they have not yet offer proof beyond a doubt explaining every single concept of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by TurnyBright
The nature of life fully can't be explained fully yet. However, there is enough information that can be determined that all living things on the planet earth from simple prokayotes, to plants, to complex creatures such as human all produce DNA. In order for DNA to be replicated, all living creatures must acquire the necessary minerals in order to replicate. What is requires varies and years of evidence has shown that could change. What do you think the concept of evolution is all about? Genetic mutation? For all creatures on earth, they is plenty of evidence that organic elements, notably carbon and hydrogen are necessary to reproduce life. There is an entire field based on the study of these reactions, called organic chemistry.
On your point that any potential areas could become ecosystem, yes there is a possibility. Like there's a possibility God exists. It's very abstract and vague. Have we found anything different at this point?
We might never know the answer of how life was created from non-life, or even other possibilities. To suggest that organic elements are not necessary for life is simply wrong. There is plenty of proof available that was carried over eras.
In my opinion, you're using adjectives that carry a negative connotation for a phenomenon that is a neutral occurrence. How can something that is an "environment," with all the multitude of different meanings that word has, ever be "hurt?" It can only be changed. It could be changed to consist of less living things (usually by other living things), it could be changed in color or atmospheric composition, or it could be changed in such a way that life (as we know it, obviously) is extinguished, and thus it would cease to be an ecosystem.Quote:
Most people can easily recognize an enviornment that has been "hurt" and have no need of an academic definition that quibbles over whether or not an environment that we subjectively feel is degraded is still technically an "environment" or not. I mean, come on!
This is a thoroughly natural process that has always gone on. Dinosaurs may have been killed by a vast geological event, or a particular bacterium, or maybe they all tripped and hit their head. Whatever happened, they're all dead and no one wastes tears over them. All things are transitory, and I firmly believe that the human race will eventually (or momentarily) cause our environment to be so altered that the physical bodies of humans and other life-forms on earth can no longer live. I don't view this as the "destruction" of the environment, merely as our species naturally running it's course. Our planet running it's natural course.
Even if the earth became a burned-out shell where no earthly life could live for 100 trillion years, that would be no better or worse than the way it is now. Thinking of it, I can't think of anything that carries connotation of "good" or "bad" that actually persists through time but the concept of "beauty." I believe that beauty can be found in anything, and so as long as know that beauty will persist SOMEWHERE even if I'm not around to gawk at it, that's good enough for me.
An also, the "possibility" of life arising from non-life is more of a "certainty." God is something that has never been empirically observed or proven. The VERY observable presence of life ALL around us and the logical assumption that it developed from non-life (since both are composed of the same thing) pretty much proves that not only has life spawned from non-life, but that there's no reason it couldn't happen again, maybe in a way that is utterly unrecognizable to our eyes as life.
I know what you are saying, but I think you are being a bit philosophical about something that is also a very practical matter, and taking an objective point of view about something that also has a subjective point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by TurnyBright
On a geologic scale, it may not matter whether overpopulation and pollution make a world in which we all die or wish we were dead. But since most of us are neither rocks nor glaciers, we don't take that perspective. For most of us, if the ecosystem that supports us collapsed and we started to die of starvation or disease, and everything we knew and loved in life started to collapse, we would say that is "bad." It's great for you that you can step outside of that and say, "all things are transitory," but for most people, if they had to go through that, they would think it was "bad."
For me, the question is whether we are making a world we want to have or not. When I worry about overpopulation and pollution, I don't think so much about whether our existence really matters in the long run. I think more about whether I'll be able to enjoy good food for the rest of my life and whether future generations will be able to do the same. It might not matter to the universe as a whole, or to you, but it does matter to most people.
I am being philosophical because we're talking in a Philosophy forum, of course
I don't litter, even though I feel that in the long run it won't matter at all. I'll pick up trash if it's in such a spot that I feel motivated to. I mean, I definitely wouldn't enjoy it personally if there was a nuclear armageddon or something but... I know we're all going to die eventually, and if it has to happen, then why worry about the particulars of how?
Okay 1: we are way more complex than bacteriaQuote:
Originally Posted by toketaker
2: just because you can draw vague similarities between humans and bacteria, does not at all mean that we're very similar; it just means that a few aspects of human and bacteria life are similar. That's all.
3: science isn't real? Ok I'll leave that to you..
dude this is so true. i've been thinking of life like a pointless ratrace...watching people on the subway and looking into their minds. they wake up, bring their kids to school, go to work, whatever but like they're like little ants or creatures. Bacteria may be an over-reaction but yeah I agree man. AND like, I think thats what people find so comforting about religion. you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by toketaker
:hippy:
There is nothing that exists that is not a life form, or that does not contribute to the form of life; everything that exists is a life, and alive.
The symbolic re-representations of life are infinite, from the seemingly unpredictable quarks and gluons to the seemingly unpredictable nations and organizations.
From the orbits of atoms and ions to the orbits of stars and planets.
From the cellular division in organs to the Social cliques in Highschool.
All of reality recreates itself in every example and representation it can, on one level or another, macro or micro from our perspective is irrelevant; what reality is, is a self repeating all encompassing infinitesimal omniversal universe. bodies building bigger bodies, building bigger bodies; collections of bodies building ecosystems, building ecosystems, building ecosystems; ecosystems building elements, elements building environments, environments building bodies, bodies building ecosystems, etc.
It just gets infinitely bigger and/or smaller. more and/or less complex.
Until we reach critical mass and reverse polarity.
and then it just does the same, only mirrored.
I see this view a lot. We are a virus, a bacteria, or some other thing with overall negative connotations.
I think there is something powerful to be found in maintaining an optimistic view, and nothing to be gained by thinking of ourselves as essentially scum.
I like ideas like we are the universe trying to understand itself. There is more hope in it.
The opposite of cynicism is not naivete. It is hope.