There has to be an answer

Ok so.. Im sure this thread wont last long, mostly because i doubt i can express my question here as clear as it seems in my head.. but lets see ..

Is there any single living creature on earth that is completely pointless?
I am at work so i have lots of daydreaming and pointless thinking time.. so i have been eliminating options in my head since about.. five minutes after i arrived ( watch out for the "ive been fired"thread later) and my mind naturally jumped to the creatures i dislike most.. spiders- eat flys, flys-feed frogs, fleas- keep vets wealthy, germs-keep whole industrys alive. I guess you could argue that most creatures COULD be eaten, but not all of those would count as im not looking for what could be eaten, rather what is frequently eaten. like im sure you could eat a lemurs balls but unless there is evidence that something does, i wouldnt count that.
There has to be something completely pointless, which isnt eaten, making people money, contributing anything to the world.
any suggestions?

Interesting thoughts. I think everything that exists has a purpose or it would have been weeded out by nature by now. Though I don't think 'making humans money' is a valid enough reason for something to exist. There has to be more to it. Most things have existed and had a purpose long before our tiny little fraction of advanced human history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marlie

germs-keep whole industrys alive.

---

Germs and bacteria are really the most prosperous creatures on the planet, outnumbering the number of humans on it multiple times, and we are all alive at their mercy. Bacteria keeps us healthy, but can also make a sick. If bacteria was ever advanced enough to decide to get rid of us, we'd all be dead, just like that.

So yeah, I think they're kind of important. :P The purpose of something doesn't revolve around us anyway.

Pandas

Yep Pandas lol, they should be dead by now. Maybe they helped stop the bamboo from growing everywhere, but we do a good enough job of that now so....

BTW your reasons for the things you mentioned sucked. DeeryTheDeer's post explains why.

Sloths, humans.

Depends what your definition of pointful and pointless is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marlie

There has to be something completely pointless, which isnt eaten, making people money, contributing anything to the world.
any suggestions?

---

Very anthropocentric view of the world there.

Something's pointless if it doesn't have a use by humans huh?

Really Marlie, really? Can you not yourself reflect and see how silly this is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Very anthropocentric view of the world there.

Something's pointless if it doesn't have a use by humans huh?

Eaten could mean eaten by anything- not neccesarily a human, contributing to the earth could mean.. polination. Its only human based in your mind, not mine.

Really Marlie, really? Can you not yourself reflect and see how silly this is?
Its not silly to discuss things that arent of interest to YOU.. its an open forum... dont like my thread, please skip past it.

---

sigh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Yep Pandas lol, they should be dead by now. Maybe they helped stop the bamboo from growing everywhere, but we do a good enough job of that now so....

BTW your reasons for the things you mentioned sucked. DeeryTheDeer's post explains why.

Sloths, humans.

I dont know much about sloths, but you could have the answer with humans, we do more harm than good to the earth, really i am looking at it from the planets point of view.. rather than a human one... if thats possible.. i dunno.. its a slow day at work.. and as i suspected i couldnt quite put into words what was in my head lol.
Depends what your definition of pointful and pointless is.

---

.

Pandas may exist for our amusement. Our amusement exists for? Then that which exists for our amusement exists for? Ad infinitum.

Reasons are illogical on an objective scale.

Exactly what I was thinking cloud. We have to define pointful and pointless first.

I know what the most important animal is though, can anyone guess it? By most important I mean no other animal could survive without them if they were to die right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marlie

sigh

---

you heavily implied that it was use by humans, that's why all the other posts have independently recognised that.



also it doesn't matter if it's of interest to me, i was pointing it out because i think you're wrong in how you think.

Quote:

---

Interesting thoughts. I think everything that exists has a purpose or it would have been weeded out by nature by now.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

you heavily implied that it was use by humans, that's why all the other posts have independently recognised that.

how so exactly? eaten could have been by anything, human or otherwise, infact the only part of my post that was specifically human related.. were just 2 of infinite points possible to make

also it doesn't matter if it's of interest to me, i was pointing it out because i think you're wrong in how you think.
theres no wrong or right because u took what i said as a completely literal statement, and ignored the fact that i was asking for peoples input, not claiming to know the answer, i started this thread because i am feeding a small thought i had to see where other peoples thought process took it :roll:

---

Pherhaps i should have started a thread on catgirls or manga.. may have been more accepted... god forbid anyone attempts a thought process different to everyone elses here.

I think this is the question marlie meant to ask:

Is there any organism on Earth that could be removen completely, without any other organisms being affected in any way, at all, directly or indirectly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

I think this is the question marlie meant to ask:

Is there any organism on Earth that could be removen completely, without any other organisms being affected in any way, at all, directly or indirectly?

---

This is better.

I suppose then the biological term would be a single-species ecosystem.

*Googles*.

http://ecoworldly.com/2008/10/11/sci...arths-surface/

Wow. That's incredible.

Marlie, the answer is 'yes' in the sense that they don't interact with any other species.

However if that makes them pointless then by induction everything is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

I think this is the question marlie meant to ask:

Is there any organism on Earth that could be removen completely, without any other organisms being affected in any way, at all, directly or indirectly?

---

Thankyou Marvo.. you got me completely,that is exactly what i was trying to ask.. in a roundabout, cackhanded sleep deprived way :hug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClouD

Pandas may exist for our amusement. Our amusement exists for? Then that which exists for our amusement exists for? Ad infinitum.

Reasons are illogical on an objective scale.

---

you make my tiny brain hurt :lol:

Nature abhors a vacuum. Most of us have heard this classic phrase before. What does this mean for this question? Every living creature right now fills a niche in the eco-system, including man. If that creature were to disappear, it creates a vacuum, that another creature will fill.

No creature is 'pointless' because everything is a part of a much larger picture. Even the so called pointless creatures that go extinct still played a role for evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marlie

Thankyou Marvo.. you got me completely,that is exactly what i was trying to ask.. in a roundabout, cackhanded sleep deprived way :hug:

---

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

Quote:

---

Nature abhors a vacuum. Most of us have heard this classic phrase before. What does this mean for this question? Every living creature right now fills a niche in the eco-system, including man. If that creature were to disappear, it creates a vacuum, that another creature will fill.

No creature is 'pointless' because everything is a part of a much larger picture. Even the so called pointless creatures that go extinct still played a role for evolution.

---

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'?

If you think about the butterfly effect, everything does interact with everything else eventually.
but if everything has a purpose, then how special can having a purpose be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marlie

humans, we do more harm than good to the earth,

---

But if a big meteor were to come crashing towards our planet, wouldn't human beings would be the only ones who
could save the planet? By launching a nuclear bomb at it or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marlie

Pherhaps i should have started a thread on catgirls or manga.. may have been more accepted... god forbid anyone attempts a thought process different to everyone elses here.

---

It's good that your not afraid to express your opinion.
That's just what all of us are doing also.

Is anyone going to define pointful and pointless????
3 people have said we need to do so yet no one had tried.
I am looking to marlie since you started the thread.

Quote:

---

I know what the most important animal is though, can anyone guess it? By most important I mean no other animal could survive without them if they were to die right now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Pandas

---

Ditto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommo

Is anyone going to define pointful and pointless????
3 people have said we need to do so yet no one had tried.
I am looking to marlie since you started the thread.

---

By pointless i meant, should it become extinct nothing else would notice/ be affected by its loss...

Im sure though it could be argued that many specific insects would fall under that category.. because if they were food for another creature.. the creature would move onto another kind of insect.. pherhaps. So maybe it has to go deeper than "being part of a food chain"

xei is gonna shout at me in a minute because he i guess answered probably as well as i could hope.. a single species eco system... would i assume.. cover that criteria.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species...

The Earth is a living organism you say?

And who are you to say that the climate's current shape is abnormal? The current way it is acting, it's responding exactly the way it should.

And the human race is highly diverse. I don't think the eskimos who live in iglos on Greenland are 'harming' the Earth anymore than the lion in Africa.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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, ...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :D :D I'm totally with you on this.

Quote:

---

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. :D :D 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.

Quote:

---

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....

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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..?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :?

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

And additionally, by your logic, everything is everything.

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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....

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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 :)

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvo

And additionally, by your logic, everything is everything.

---

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

Quote:

---

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? :eek:

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :P

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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:

http://martianchronicles.files.wordp...in_earth10.jpg

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/i/msnbc/C...ng_of_fire.jpg

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.

Quote:

---

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:

http://martianchronicles.files.wordp...in_earth10.jpg

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/i/msnbc/C...ng_of_fire.jpg

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.

Quote:

---

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..