Forums → WEPR → Is Humanity Viral?
| 20 | 5761 |
This idea was brought to my attention and it seems to make astoudning sense. The argument is basically that humanity is nothing more then a Viral Infection, in a point of view Humanity is a Cancer, it has beneficial effects if properly used, but sadly the host for Humanity, namely the planet, cannot control it, so like in the average cancerous human, the cancer is malignant.
Can we not compare ourselves to a virus quite easily? We reproduce uncontrollably, and have an astounding tendency to destroy our own environment.
This is an interesting question since a virus has many basic qualities that do not allow us to classify it as a lviing organism. We consider ourselves mammals, but every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but humans do not. We move to an area and we multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way we can survive is to spread to another area. The only other thing on this planet that follows the same pattern is a virus.
In British Columbia, where I live we have over 600 ghost towns, towns that have died after all the natural resources in the area have been used up. This is a testament to our tendency towards the actions of a virus.
What do you think? How much do we have in common with a virus? I can't say scientifically (spelling?) because well, scientifically we don't fit the definition of a virus, but we do seem to have alot in common.
- 20 Replies
Wow, very good theory. I have actually never thought of humans like that. In a sense, all living things on earth are a virus. Earth is the host and we slowly are destroying it. We actually are very common with the virus. We are just like an advanced virus.
Now that I think about it we could be compared to other things as well. COuld we be compared to a Pathogen? Or a parasite?
Is a woman pregnant with a child, hosting a parasite? At least until the child can sustain life on its own outside the womans body? It feeds off the woman's body, forcing her to go through multiple unpleasantries, and is the fetus giving anything back in return? Is this not a parasite?
So many questions I have, questions that need the opinions of others!
I never really thought of a view like this, but I can see the connection you are trying to make.
There are, however, good people that try and help the environment and prevent the destruction of our earth, but simply not enough to sustain much impact.
At that fetus comment, the fetus isn't necessarily doing harm to the mother, she just becomes somewhat uncomfortable, and she needs to eat more healthy foods.
In a sense, we are feeding off our earth, but we take from our earth isn't directly connected to the destruction of our earth. We destroy trees, plants, vegetation, etc., but that directly isn't causing the destruction of earth. But really, a very interesting and thought out theory. ^.^
Nice comparison, although it doesn't really change anything :P
There are, however, good people that try and help the environment and prevent the destruction of our earth, but simply not enough to sustain much impact.
Anyone who lives uses resources, therefore is damaging the environment.
Btw,
This is not what you would call a theory. A theory is an explanation of how something works. This does not.
Its nothing more then a comparison, interesting enough though.
Because there is so manyyyyyy things we know of, you can easily compare one thing to another. This was quite un-ordinary though
I didn't say that they didn't do harm, they just do somewhat less harm than the average man inflicts. They also try to inspire others to not totally refrain from resourse usage, but lessen their use.
@Drace, if you think about it, this is somewhat, a theory. It does explain not directly how humans work, but the the theory that we are closely related to parasites, just on a lowerscale.
I didn't say that they didn't do harm, they just do somewhat less harm than the average man inflicts.
If they inflict damage, then they indeed are a cancerous cells.
If one said "Humans are viruses!". This would be a theory for that claim.
But really, its nothing more then a comparison.
Theory is much stronger then a comparison. A theory would be more direct, and would actually state that humans are viruses.
Well somewhat on the lower scale.<<First time using that term :P <<First time using that word
It is not a theory, you are right, I didn't think I used that word did I?
No you didn't, Estel and Total called it a theory.
@ Estel
The comparison of a fetus to a parasite is the one I bleieve to be the most viable. The fetus is like a tapeworm, it requires the mother to eat more to be able to sustain both her life and the childs, it causes problems for the mother, the fetus offers nothing in return, this is very much like a parasite.
@ Drace
It is not a theory, you are right, I didn't think I used that word did I? I don't see it anywhere. The reason I didn't use that word is because humans don't fit the scientific defenition of a virus.
It can in a sense cause harm to the mother, but not necessarily like a parasite.
@Drace, I also never said it was a strong-based theory if it all a theory. My definition of a theory is probably quite different than yours. Mine is somewhat loosely used
Nice comparison, although it doesn't really change anything :P
Drace has pretty much summed it up, at least the way I read it.
Analogies are good insofar as they can be thought-provoking or convey a point. However, analogies don't convey synonymous readings or produce equations- you can follow the analogy insofar as you can relate fundamental behaviors of humans to fundamental behaviors of all living things.
For the majority of people, this is an excellent point because people, for all their intelligence, haven't got a grasp of any kind of perspective nearing ecological objectivity. Increasingly we find that the belief that we can 'control our own behavior' is very difficult if not impossible on some levels, and therefore we are 'no different from' your basic unicellular pathogen or virion. It really makes you think "what do I have this brain for", which is fun to think about so long as you also remember that ultimately you still have your brain anyway.
That we all cause 'harm' to the environment however, is pretty trivial. I'd explain this by saying it is a reflection of basic entropy laws. No organised unit is going to exert a net positive organisational force on its environment. You think that we're trying to 'save the planet'? It's not about saving you know. It's about management, and it's not so much a matter of if the planet becomes uninhabitable, but how fast.
@ Strop
I agree with absolutely everything you said, except that although few creatures exert an overall positive force on there environment, many creatures are virtually neutral in how they affect their environment.
And yes this is more of an observation than a ground breaking insight into the workings of humanity.(Im 16 give me a break I really only post it to provoke thought.
hey did anyone else realize that the first post was almost entirely taken from the first Matrix?
You must be logged in to post a reply!