Thread: There has to be an answer

Originally Posted by Xei

I just answered the question. Hullo? I promise I'm not invisible.

Yeah I just showed an example of how that isn't true.

And why does evolution mean that it had a point? Because it led to the creation of more pointless creatures? How does that make it not pointless? Or are you thinking that it may have led to the evolution of man?

This entire thread has a large anthropocentric bias. Once again, what exactly is the meaning of 'purpose'?

you're assuming that I mean the point of evolution is humanity

But that wasn't my point at all, the point is life itself. Life needs no other reason to be meaningful except that it is alive.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Why such a negative view about humans? When talking about parasitic relationships, it only pertains to living organisms, not the earth. Otherwise almost every animal would be considered a parasite. There are also organisms with populations many times larger than ours, but they aren't parasites.

Well, the earth IS an organism. Not in the accepted sense. But in a way it is. If we take this definition "A system regarded as analogous in its structure or functions to a living body" The Earth breathes through the trees. It reproduces through the animals and bacteria etc. It processes waste which is put in to the Earth through the use of bacteria.
Definitely an organism. If you still say it's not. Think about humans without bacteria or single celled organisms. Bacteria helps us digest, sperm helps us procreate etc.

To accept this you have to disregard the notion that we are separate from the Earth. Because we are not, we arose from this Earth, we are a part of it, similar to the bacteria being part of us.

Marvo - We're going on general activities of humans here, not the 1% who don't harm the Earth and the other animals excessively.

Oh yeah and there are 90 species of animals that die every day. So there would have to be a few in there that didn't contribute anything to anything.

Originally Posted by Moose

Humans are pointless. We're parasites.

"In general, parasites are much smaller than their hosts, show a high degree of specialization for their mode of life, and reproduce more quickly and in greater numbers than their hosts."
We're smaller than the Earth, are very specialized in our lives having forced nature to adapt to us instead of the other way around, and reproduce to the point that we're not facing a serious population problem.

"Parasites reduce host fitness in many ways, ranging from general or specialized pathology (such as castration), impairment of secondary sex characteristics, to the modification of host behaviour. Parasites increase their fitness by exploiting hosts for food, habitat and dispersal."
We have modified the Earth's 'behaviour' (global warming - climate is acting differently than it should), we abuse resources regularly.

The quotes are from Wikipedia.

You take us off the Earth, nothing harmful happens. In fact, it would be the opposite. Plantation would take over (like in Chernobyl) once our technology stops running without our aid and eventually wildlife would bloom as well. The climate would return to normal, resources would replenish, etc.

I find the depth of human experience and understanding of the world to be a good thing.


Imagine the beauty of the world and it's awe, if all human's were gone suddenly.

But then who is left to experience and reflect on this beauty?

Noone, and what good is beauty and wonder if none can experience it.

My dog often sits and looks out at the sky for hours. I believe it's a fallacy that only humans wonder about the world.

Originally Posted by tommo

My dog often sits and looks out at the sky for hours. I believe it's a fallacy that only humans wonder about the world.

But we do experience and appreciate it's beauty in a way other animals are incapable of.

Who says? Unless you mean we actually know what's out there, and other animals can only wonder what those lights in the sky are. I'm not sure that matters though.

Originally Posted by tommo

Who says? Unless you mean we actually know what's out there, and other animals can only wonder what those lights in the sky are. I'm not sure that matters though.

Our brains are developed in such a way that we can look at a beautiful painting and rather than just very basically enjoy the sensation of looking at it we can go so far as to draw meaning from it, and to infer with our imagination.

Maybe I'm wrong but I am very doubtful that any animal can appreciate it in such an advanced way as we can. Considering we are intellectually more advanced in near all ways than any animal, there's no reason for our appreciation of aesthetics to be exempt from this.

Originally Posted by tommo

Well, the earth IS an organism. Not in the accepted sense. But in a way it is. If we take this definition "A system regarded as analogous in its structure or functions to a living body" The Earth breathes through the trees. It reproduces through the animals and bacteria etc. It processes waste which is put in to the Earth through the use of bacteria.
Definitely an organism. If you still say it's not. Think about humans without bacteria or single celled organisms. Bacteria helps us digest, sperm helps us procreate etc.

To accept this you have to disregard the notion that we are separate from the Earth. Because we are not, we arose from this Earth, we are a part of it, similar to the bacteria being part of us.

Marvo - We're going on general activities of humans here, not the 1% who don't harm the Earth and the other animals excessively.

Oh yeah and there are 90 species of animals that die every day. So there would have to be a few in there that didn't contribute anything to anything.

So it's a metaphorical organism, not a real organism. "Organism: a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran." That's the definition we are looking for. The earth is made of rocks and magma. It has no concious, it has no blood, it has no organs, it has no drive to survive, it is not living. I am not the earth, trees are not the earth. All life could be stripped from the earth and the earth would still be the earth, a lifeless rock. Symbiotic relationships mean only that seperate organisms live interconnected lives. They are still separate organisms. I am not bacteria and bacteria is not me, they are separate entities living together. The earth is merely the space in which these organisms live, it is not an organism itself.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Our brains are developed in such a way that we....

You may be right. I'm really not sure since there's not a lot of evidence.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

So it's a metaphorical organism, not a real organism. "Organism: a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran." That's the definition we are looking for. The earth is made of rocks and magma. It has no concious, it has no blood, it has no organs, it has no drive to survive, it is not living. I am not the earth, trees are not the earth. All life could be stripped from the earth and the earth would still be the earth, a lifeless rock. Symbiotic relationships mean only that seperate organisms live interconnected lives. They are still separate organisms. I am not bacteria and bacteria is not me, they are separate entities living together. The earth is merely the space in which these organisms live, it is not an organism itself.

LOL that's so fucking absurd. Do you realise how illogical what you're saying is?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

So it's a metaphorical organism, not a real organism. "Organism: a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran." That's the definition we are looking for.

No, it's a real organism. Why is THAT the definition we're looking for?
Why is the definition I procured not equally valid?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The earth is made of rocks and magma. It has no concious, it has no blood, it has no organs, it has no drive to survive, it is not living. I am not the earth, trees are not the earth. All life could be stripped from the earth and the earth would still be the earth, a lifeless rock.

So you define the Earth as a rock?
Explain to me why the Earth is only that rock, but not also the trees and organisms living in it. Since we all came from the Earth, we are all a PART of the Earth. That rock obviously had and has the conditions and particles necessary for life to arise from it. Including trees, animals and insects and fungus and everything else. How can we be separate in any way? We are merely a product of it. Just as our fingernails are a product of our bodies. Just as an apple is the product of an apple tree. Humans and everything else the the product of a life producing 'rock'. ('rock' in parenthesis because it's not JUST a rock, it has all the things I mentioned which made it possible for life to form).

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I am not bacteria and bacteria is not me, they are separate entities living together.

What ARE you then? Did you know the human body is made up of only 10% human cells? So you're saying you are only those 10%? The other 90% are separate organisms living in you?
That's so stupid. That 10% cannot survive without the other 90% of separate organisms etc. Therefore they are one.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Imagine the beauty of the world and it's awe, if all human's were gone suddenly.

But then who is left to experience and reflect on this beauty?

Noone, and what good is beauty and wonder if none can experience it.

But the humans only existed for a fraction of the time compared to
the age of earth or the universe. Rather insignificant, no? And it seems
that things were going alright even before we came along, ...

Originally Posted by dajo

But the humans only existed for a fraction of the time compared to
the age of earth or the universe. Rather insignificant, no? And it seems
that things were going alright even before we came along, ...

What do you mean? My point is that beauty in the world is only valuable through experience of it.

Originally Posted by tommo

You may be right. I'm really not sure since there's not a lot of evidence.


LOL that's so fucking absurd. Do you realise how illogical what you're saying is?

Can you please explain why it is illogical instead of just calling it illogical?

No, it's a real organism. Why is THAT the definition we're looking for?
Why is the definition I procured not equally valid?

Because what you procured was a metaphor, read on.

So you define the Earth as a rock?
Explain to me why the Earth is only that rock, but not also the trees and organisms living in it. Since we all came from the Earth, we are all a PART of the Earth. That rock obviously had and has the conditions and particles necessary for life to arise from it. Including trees, animals and insects and fungus and everything else. How can we be separate in any way? We are merely a product of it. Just as our fingernails are a product of our bodies. Just as an apple is the product of an apple tree. Humans and everything else the the product of a life producing 'rock'. ('rock' in parenthesis because it's not JUST a rock, it has all the things I mentioned which made it possible for life to form).

By that logic we are also the Sun/the Sun is us/the Sun is a living organism. All energy on Earth is from the Sun, except the small fragment of energy that comes from geothermic means.

The Earth is not a living organism. I suppose the simplest definition of life, as we know it, is something that reproduces. The Earth does not reproduce.

What ARE you then? Did you know the human body is made up of only 10% human cells? So you're saying you are only those 10%? The other 90% are separate organisms living in you?
That's so stupid. That 10% cannot survive without the other 90% of separate organisms etc. Therefore they are one.

This is known as a symbiotic relationship.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

What do you mean? My point is that beauty in the world is only valuable through experience of it.

Yes and I agree with you.
My point was just, if there were no humans to experience the universe,..
well it would just be exactly like 99% of the history of the universe or sth.
That just came to my mind, when you said 'imagine a world without
humans to experience it...'. I didn't mean to disagree with you or anything.

Other than that, this is it right here, this is the main act. So better experience
the hell out of it. I'm totally with you on this.

Originally Posted by dajo

Yes and I agree with you.
My point was just, if there were no humans to experience the universe,..
well it would just be exactly like 99% of the history of the universe or sth.
That just came to my mind, when you said 'imagine a world without
humans to experience it...'. I didn't mean to disagree with you or anything.

Other than that, this is it right here, this is the main act. So better experience
the hell out of it. I'm totally with you on this.

Yeah, but I wouldn't hesitate to say there have been other lifeforms in the history of the universe capable of complex aesthetic appreciation.

It's kind of awesome, to think of.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Can you please explain why it is illogical instead of just calling it illogical?
Becaus....

So you are agreeing that the Earth is just the rock part?
lol....

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Yeah, but I wouldn't hesitate to say there have been other lifeforms in the history of the universe capable of complex aesthetic appreciation.

It's kind of awesome, to think of.

No yeah, I wouldn't either. Gotta love the hubble pictures.

Originally Posted by tommo

So you are agreeing that the Earth is just the rock part?
lol....

Did you read the rest of my post? Please reply to it, since I'm pretty sure I raised some valid points.

And yes, I believe that Earth is just a rock, in essence. Of course it is more than that, since it is super heated and got a fluid core, but it is by no definition or understanding alive, and it does not gain anything from having life on it or not having life on it. What is existing on the surface of Earth is as significant as the dirt you may or may not have on your fingers.

Originally Posted by tommo

You may be right. I'm really not sure since there's not a lot of evidence.


LOL that's so fucking absurd. Do you realise how illogical what you're saying is?

No, it's a real organism. Why is THAT the definition we're looking for?
Why is the definition I procured not equally valid?

So you define the Earth as a rock?
Explain to me why the Earth is only that rock, but not also the trees and organisms living in it. Since we all came from the Earth, we are all a PART of the Earth. That rock obviously had and has the conditions and particles necessary for life to arise from it. Including trees, animals and insects and fungus and everything else. How can we be separate in any way? We are merely a product of it. Just as our fingernails are a product of our bodies. Just as an apple is the product of an apple tree. Humans and everything else the the product of a life producing 'rock'. ('rock' in parenthesis because it's not JUST a rock, it has all the things I mentioned which made it possible for life to form).

What ARE you then? Did you know the human body is made up of only 10% human cells? So you're saying you are only those 10%? The other 90% are separate organisms living in you?
That's so stupid. That 10% cannot survive without the other 90% of separate organisms etc. Therefore they are one.

"No, it's a real organism. Why is THAT the definition we're looking for?
Why is the definition I procured not equally valid?"

Because the definition you used was not the correct definition. Did you know that some words have multiple meanings? We are looing for the definition of a living organism, LIFE! Your definiton as copied from dictionary.com: "any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being: the governmental organism." Why did you leave out the government part? Do you not believe the government is an organism as well? Take note of the word "analogous." It means that this definiton pertains to systems analogous to living beings, not actual living beings. The earth is not living, therefore it is not an organism in the sense that it could be involved in a symbiotic relationship with other living creatures. Humans cannot have a parasitic relationship with the earth.

"So you define the Earth as a rock?
Explain to me why the Earth is only that rock, but not also the trees and organisms living in it. Since we all came from the Earth, we are all a PART of the Earth. That rock obviously had and has the conditions and particles necessary for life to arise from it. Including trees, animals and insects and fungus and everything else. How can we be separate in any way? We are merely a product of it. Just as our fingernails are a product of our bodies. Just as an apple is the product of an apple tree. Humans and everything else the the product of a life producing 'rock'. ('rock' in parenthesis because it's not JUST a rock, it has all the things I mentioned which made it possible for life to form)."

If you break it down, everything in the universe is made out of the same elementary particles. That means I am also Mars, I am the sun, I am the Andromeda Galaxy, I am everything. How far are you willing to go? I could transfer all of the trees to Mars if I wanted to, would they still be part of the Earth even though they are millions of miles away? We aren't even 100% sure that life did arise on Earth. Maybe life came here on asteroids? It doesn't really matter where it came from, the Earth is still the Earth with or without life. In fact, the Earth has lived most of its existence without life.

"What ARE you then? Did you know the human body is made up of only 10% human cells? So you're saying you are only those 10%? The other 90% are separate organisms living in you?
That's so stupid. That 10% cannot survive without the other 90% of separate organisms etc. Therefore they are one."

What you are asking is a deeply philisophical question regarding conciousness. At what point does a human no longer become a human? It's a subjective question. All living creatures engage in symbiosis to survive, I am not refuting that. The fallacy of your logic is the Earth is not alive. Symbiotic relationships require life.

The Earth doesn't reproduce..?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Why such a negative view about humans? When talking about parasitic relationships, it only pertains to living organisms, not the earth. Otherwise almost every animal would be considered a parasite. There are also organisms with populations many times larger than ours, but they aren't parasites.

I was making a metaphor, comparing us to other parasites in the world and how similar our impact on the Earth is to a parasite on a host.

True, other animals have higher populations than us, but they contribute to the ecosystem. Here in BC, a good example is the Great Bear Rainforest where there's an abundance of bears, coastal wolves and salmon. The predators eat a huge amount of salmon during the seasonal run, and leave partially eaten corpses everywhere. These dead fish fertilize the the soil, which fertilizes the trees, which produces a thriving rainforest with a healthy ecosystem.

We take, take, take without giving back. Animals naturally fall into their place and keep their ecosystem going just by doing what their instincts tell them. We were like that at some point. The natives certainly gave back and took only what they needed. But now humans are stressing the resources for not just us, but every other organism.

I don't have a completely bleek outlook on humans. I mean it's pretty obvious that we're messing up the earth and that if modern-day humans were wiped off the face of the planet, it would be beneficial, but I only have negative views on the general population. When it comes to the wonders of the individual my views are positive. (:

Jesus I didn't notice the second page.

I WAS JUST MAKING A METAPHOR!

I know the Earth is not, by human definition, a living organism.
But what we're doing to the Earth is awfully similar to what a parasite does to its host.

I didn't mean to start a big ol' debate. u__u

Originally Posted by Moose

Jesus I didn't notice the second page.

I WAS JUST MAKING A METAPHOR!

I know the Earth is not, by human definition, a living organism.
But what we're doing to the Earth is awfully similar to what a parasite does to its host.

No it's not, Earth is not a living organism. You cannot compare a parasitic relationship with what we're doing, at all. Earth does not gain or lose anything from us being here or not being here. Earth simply just is a planet. Additionally, as I said, who are you to say that what we're doing is inherently bad?

Originally Posted by Moose

Jesus I didn't notice the second page.

I WAS JUST MAKING A METAPHOR!

I know the Earth is not, by human definition, a living organism.
But what we're doing to the Earth is awfully similar to what a parasite does to its host.

I didn't mean to start a big ol' debate. u__u

I know that, tommo is the one who thinks the earth is a living organism. I was debating with him.

Originally Posted by Marvo

No it's not, Earth is not a living organism. You cannot compare a parasitic relationship with what we're doing, at all. Earth does not gain or lose anything from us being here or not being here. Earth simply just is a planet. Additionally, as I said, who are you to say that what we're doing is inherently bad?

I know Earth is not a living organism, as I just stated. I didn't specifically say that Earth gains or loses anything. But we are smaller than the Earth, as a parasite is smaller than its host. We are over using resources, as a parasite does with its host. We are modifying the Earth's behavior (or rather, speeding up already existing behaviors like climate change), as a parasite modifies its host.
It's possible to make a metaphor with these two subjects. I'm not the first who's done it.

It's not inherently bad, of course. Compared to the entire universe and the billions of other galaxies out there, what happens on Earth is nothing. If Earth goes down, we all go down, and so be it. The universe will continue to exist.

But there are ethical problems with what we're doing. The death and destruction we cause, and all that jazz.

I wasn't making a solid argument. I was just stating my opinion and thoughts based on the OP. It has holes in it, I don't know all the minute details about our global problems. I know just enough to make a broad comparison.

I'm really not prepared for a debate.