Thread: There has to be an answer

That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to them juroara - I think I'll need to find some time later to get it through to them that we are not separate from the Earth.

Originally Posted by juroara

Does the earth reproduce? Sure it does! Think of it this way, everything that you are is the earth, literally. Every part of you - is of the earth. And the other part of you that isn't of the earth, is of the sun.

I recommend the writings of Elizabet Sahtouris

Recycled carbon atoms, ftw. The atoms in our bodies were once parts of dinosaurs! Kind of breaks your mind (in a good way) just thinking about that stuff.

Seriously though, you've got a point. By human definition, it's not a living organism. But the Earth is definitely alive in a sense, producing and thriving.

Originally Posted by juroara

Does the earth reproduce? Sure it does! Think of it this way, everything that you are is the earth, literally. Every part of you - is of the earth. And the other part of you that isn't of the earth, is of the sun.

I recommend the writings of Elizabet Sahtouris

And the matter that makes up every atom in your body was once contained within a tiny singularity before the big bang. What we are arguing is whether the earth is a living organism or not. Production isn't a part of life, reproduction is. I produce shit every day, it means nothing. Unless the Earth mates with another planet and produces an Earth hybrid, I don't think it is alive.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Unless the Earth mates with another planet and produces an Earth hybrid, I don't think it is alive.

Or even if it just splits into two. That'd be a sight.

Originally Posted by juroara

Does the earth reproduce? Sure it does! Think of it this way, everything that you are is the earth, literally. Every part of you - is of the earth. And the other part of you that isn't of the earth, is of the sun.

I recommend the writings of Elizabet Sahtouris

Apart from what Caprisun said, the matter that exists on top of the Earth is probably, in comparison, less than 2% of the matter that composes the Earth. My point is that if we 'are' the planet, we are only 1% of it. The rest is completely isolated under several kilometers of rock.

And additionally, by your logic, everything is everything.

Originally Posted by Marvo

And additionally, by your logic, everything is everything.

Don't expect him to treat this as a bad thing

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Don't expect him to treat this as a bad thing

If everything is everything, the point becomes somewhat pointless, does it not?

It's like arguing that God is outside our plane of existence. If there is no way for us to feel or communicate or have God hear us, then what is the point of God?

Originally Posted by Marvo

If everything is everything, the point becomes somewhat pointless, does it not?

It's like arguing that God is outside our plane of existence. If there is no way for us to feel or communicate or have God hear us, then what is the point of God?

i know, I agree with you.

Ok I have some time now.

Originally Posted by Marvo

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

I did, my whole post explained why, my other post.

Originally Posted by Marvo

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.

Yes, and I didn't say this wasn't true. I most definitely know this to be true. It's a scientific fact lol We all come from the same place, therefore we are all one.

Originally Posted by Marvo

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.

You're repeating what's been said like 5 times already. I'm trying to explain why the Earth does reproduce; we are PART of the Earth, along with every other animal and plant.

Originally Posted by Marvo

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

So why is that magma core plus all the other metals etc. found in the various layers of the Earth any different to the trees growing on top of it?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

"any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being: the governmental organism." Why did you leave out the government part?

Hm, strange, when I looked it said social organism, still the same thing, just weird lol
Anyway....

Originally Posted by Caprisun

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.

Agh.... I kind of countered this already by trying to say that we are one with the Earth, it produced us and all other animals and plants, fungi etc. The rock part of the Earth does not reproduce no, but you can't separate the rock part from anything else as I said earlier in this post. Where do you draw the line? You can't without contradicting yourself. You can't say "oh yes of course the plasma in the Earth's core is part of the planet, but the grass growing up top isn't".

Originally Posted by Caprisun

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?

All the way. Yes you are everything in the universe, everyone is, everything is. Why would you go to a certain extent and then just stop of some arbitrary line?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

the Earth is still the Earth with or without life. In fact, the Earth has lived most of its existence without life.

Yes, it is. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

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.

No the fallacy in your logic is that life is not part of the Earth.

If this is the way you feel, Tommo, I don't think there is much point in me arguing with you

Originally Posted by tommo

Ok I have some time now.

I did, my whole post explained why, my other post.

Yes, and I didn't say this wasn't true. I most definitely know this to be true. It's a scientific fact lol We all come from the same place, therefore we are all one.

You're repeating what's been said like 5 times already. I'm trying to explain why the Earth does reproduce; we are PART of the Earth, along with every other animal and plant.


So why is that magma core plus all the other metals etc. found in the various layers of the Earth any different to the trees growing on top of it?


Hm, strange, when I looked it said social organism, still the same thing, just weird lol
Anyway....


Agh.... I kind of countered this already by trying to say that we are one with the Earth, it produced us and all other animals and plants, fungi etc. The rock part of the Earth does not reproduce no, but you can't separate the rock part from anything else as I said earlier in this post. Where do you draw the line? You can't without contradicting yourself. You can't say "oh yes of course the plasma in the Earth's core is part of the planet, but the grass growing up top isn't".


All the way. Yes you are everything in the universe, everyone is, everything is. Why would you go to a certain extent and then just stop of some arbitrary line?

Yes, it is. What's your point?


No the fallacy in your logic is that life is not part of the Earth.

"You're repeating what's been said like 5 times already. I'm trying to explain why the Earth does reproduce; we are PART of the Earth, along with every other animal and plant."

You're confusing reproduction with production. The Earth would have to reproduce either sexually or asexually, meaning it would split into two exact copies of itself or it could mate with another planet, as ridiculous as that sounds. All life and geological processes would be a production of the Earth.

"So why is that magma core plus all the other metals etc. found in the various layers of the Earth any different to the trees growing on top of it?"

The innards of the Earth are what make up the Earth, they are its essence. The trees are a by product of this essence when it is subjected to certain forces and bombarded with extraterrestrial objects. You can remove the trees from the Earth, but you can't remove its core without it unbecoming the Earth. It wouldn't be the Earth without its core, but it is still the Earth without trees.

"All the way. Yes you are everything in the universe, everyone is, everything is. Why would you go to a certain extent and then just stop of some arbitrary line?"

I draw the line between separate entities.

"No the fallacy in your logic is that life is not part of the Earth."

I don't think we are on the same page. Are you not arguing that the Earth is a living organism?

Originally Posted by Marvo

And additionally, by your logic, everything is everything.

Everything is of the same nature yes hello quantum physics. Nothing exists separately from the rest of reality.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Unless the Earth mates with another planet and produces an Earth hybrid, I don't think it is alive.

And if someone dies as a virgin, does this mean they were never alive?

Our definition of living is only useful for organic life as we know it on earth. I suspect our definition of living is actually contrived, limiting and entirely man-made

Originally Posted by Marvo

If everything is everything, the point becomes somewhat pointless, does it not?

It's like arguing that God is outside our plane of existence. If there is no way for us to feel or communicate or have God hear us, then what is the point of God?

?? I'm not sure what you mean. But then again I never considered God separate from reality as we know it.

Caprisun, yes it would still be Earth without trees, but trees grew out of it, so if they were destroyed they would just grow again (assuming whatever was there in the first place to make them grow didn't get destroyed too). So what I'm saying is, the conditions are right on Earth for plants to grow from it, slowly through evolution of microorganisms. Even by your self-limiting view, assuming those microorganisms didn't come here on a comet, those microorganisms are PART OF EARTH!
No the Earth (going by your definition) doesn't reproduce, but the stuff the Earth produces, reproduces. And you can't separate the producer from what it produces. They are one in the same.

The currently accepted theory says that the Earth was formed from various particles in space gathering together throughout time, through the forces of gravity. So are you going to separate all those little bits out and go, "Yep. This one's the Earth!" No, because you can't! And I'm not talking physically here. I'm saying you can't proclaim that this particular particle is the essence of the planet. In the same way, you can't claim the rock and magma parts are the essence of the planet, everything else is just excess stuff.

It's an arbitrary line put in place by man, get past it.

Originally Posted by juroara

And if someone dies as a virgin, does this mean they were never alive?

Absolutely not. A human virgin still has the ability to reproduce while the Earth does not.

Originally Posted by tommo

Caprisun, yes it would still be Earth without trees, but trees grew out of it, so if they were destroyed they would just grow again (assuming whatever was there in the first place to make them grow didn't get destroyed too). So what I'm saying is, the conditions are right on Earth for plants to grow from it, slowly through evolution of microorganisms. Even by your self-limiting view, assuming those microorganisms didn't come here on a comet, those microorganisms are PART OF EARTH!
No the Earth (going by your definition) doesn't reproduce, but the stuff the Earth produces, reproduces. And you can't separate the producer from what it produces. They are one in the same.

The currently accepted theory says that the Earth was formed from various particles in space gathering together throughout time, through the forces of gravity. So are you going to separate all those little bits out and go, "Yep. This one's the Earth!" No, because you can't! And I'm not talking physically here. I'm saying you can't proclaim that this particular particle is the essence of the planet. In the same way, you can't claim the rock and magma parts are the essence of the planet, everything else is just excess stuff.

It's an arbitrary line put in place by man, get past it.

There are a lot of things that don't make sense here. And I still don't understand how this is supposed to prove that the Earth is a living organism.

"No the Earth (going by your definition) doesn't reproduce, but the stuff the Earth produces, reproduces. And you can't separate the producer from what it produces."

I can and I did. As I said earlier, I produce shit every day, but after I flush it down the toilet it is no longer a part of me. It is unimportant if life came from Earth matter.

"Even by your self-limiting view, assuming those microorganisms didn't come here on a comet, those microorganisms are PART OF EARTH!"

You mean they live on the Earth. That is an important distinction.

"So are you going to separate all those little bits out and go, "Yep. This one's the Earth!" No, because you can't! And I'm not talking physically here. I'm saying you can't proclaim that this particular particle is the essence of the planet. In the same way, you can't claim the rock and magma parts are the essence of the planet, everything else is just excess stuff."

Well, the Earth is more than a particle, but yes we do name our planets. It's much easier to say "Mars" than "that big red hunk of rock in the sky." Plus it makes it easier for other people to understand you. I am not claiming that inner rocks and magma are the essence of the Earth, I am telling you that they are the essence of the Earth. You've made the mistake of thinking this is a matter of opinion.

"It's an arbitrary line put in place by man, get past it."

What good is science if it has no order? Just as Pluto no longer fits the definition of a planet, Earth does not fit the definition of a living organism. There are no opinions here.

Originally Posted by Marvo

If this is the way you feel, Caprisun, I don't think there is much point in me arguing with you

This.

I said the we are part of the Earth, that is how it is a fucking living organism. Because we are PART OF IT!
I said that probably 20 times already and if you don't get it, there's no point continuing the argument.

Originally Posted by tommo

This.

I said the we are part of the Earth, that is how it is a fucking living organism. Because we are PART OF IT!
I said that probably 20 times already and if you don't get it, there's no point continuing the argument.

I get what you're thinking, but I do definitely not agree with it. I don't see any point in arguing it though

Originally Posted by tommo

This.

I said the we are part of the Earth, that is how it is a fucking living organism. Because we are PART OF IT!
I said that probably 20 times already and if you don't get it, there's no point continuing the argument.

I know you have said it 20 times, I just don't get why you keep saying it. It, in no way, qualifies the Earth as a living organism. It's one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard. We have strict guidlines that an organism must meet in order to be classified as "living."

Originally Posted by Xei

That doesn't really make any sense.

What do you mean by purpose? Do you mean to provide some kind of natural harmony? That's not really true, organisms exist to recreate themselves, not serve a higher purpose.

And if by purpose you in fact mean 'to exist and hence reproduce themselves'; well, then there have never been any organisms without purpose so it's an empty statement.

Evolution and natural selection teaches that any creature or trait that isn't beneficial or useful to other creatures will gradually become extinct. I'm not talking about "wishy washy" purposes, just logical purposes to the ecosystem.

And in response to the argument that our planet is not a living organism, rather nothing but a dead, cold rock:





Looks like quite a bit of complex and constantly changing activity for a rock in space that's supposed to be lifeless except for the surface. Ironically, this view is shallow.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Evolution and natural selection teaches that any creature or trait that isn't beneficial or useful to other creatures will gradually become extinct. I'm not talking about "wishy washy" purposes, just logical purposes to the ecosystem.

And in response to the argument that our planet is not a living organism, rather nothing but a dead, cold rock:





Looks like quite a bit of complex and constantly changing activity for a rock in space that's supposed to be lifeless except for the surface. Ironically, this view is shallow.

Nobody said the Earth was cold or not complex.

Originally Posted by Moose

Recycled carbon atoms, ftw. The atoms in our bodies were once parts of dinosaurs! Kind of breaks your mind (in a good way) just thinking about that stuff.

Seriously though, you've got a point. By human definition, it's not a living organism. But the Earth is definitely alive in a sense, producing and thriving.

Exactly, which kinda makes me think the universe is a whole bunch of living planets and suns in epic proportions. Mind blowing..