Thread: If a virus...

Originally Posted by O'nus

This question is reflecting my very concern over whether humans ought to continue to "infect" the world whilst knowing we are destroying it, etc. etc.
~

Brings up the question, is the "ought" any less nonsensical when applied to humans?

And are we destroying the world? It's foolish to believe the water, the air and the land are too big for us to affect them, as was generally assumed not so long ago, but there seems a misanthropic bias in terming humanity an infection, and indeed an arrogance in assuming we're somehow immune to the homeostasis that has preserved life on earth thus far. We are overbalanced in the direction of toxicity right now, but excess toxicity will likely undermine our own survival long before it imperils life on earth.

Originally Posted by O'nus

are we much different from a virus?

Ah, this brings to mind the famous scene out of the Matrix where Smith is monologuing to Morpheus about how he categorizes humanity.

It is certainly true that we don't categorize a virus as a life form, but the specifics of why that is is beyond my current understanding of biology.


My theory about what makes us different from the virus:

-Viruses are programmed to carry out specific actions, and nothing more than those actions. To our current understanding, it does not have free will, or the illusion of free will. It operates in much the same way a machine that's designed to do only one thing would function: as an automaton.

-Humans too are programmed to carry out specific actions, like eating and sleeping, but we are not limited to just those actions. We act on our ability to make choices, and can override our most basic purpose as a life form, which is to survive.

If we look at the picture from a sociological standpoint (the way Agent Smith was viewing humanity), we do operate in a way that's similar to the process of a virus: moving to an area, stripping it of resources/life, spreading to new areas and repeating the process.

It's because we make the conscious decision to operate this way as a species that theoretically makes us worse than, and not equal to, a virus, which itself does not have the capacity to decide how it is to function.

That premise is of course dependent on the view that the wasteful destruction of life is wrong.

Uh oh! Debate potential!

Are not humans just complex molecules?

Yes, but humans also have cells, and within those cells there is a high degree of departmentalisation via various pieces of organic machinery called organelles. Viruses do not have this quality, and this quality is one of those included in the biological criteria of life.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Uh oh! Debate potential!

Are not humans just complex molecules?

~

But we can think. I'd generally say yes, that we're no different. I could say that we have the brain, but that shouldn't stop the molecule argument...so all I have is the existence of the "soul", or should I say, my subjective experience. Which makes everything complicated.

The viruses are really simple compared to us, how much does it make a difference depends on your world-view. Cool picture:

I don't really have any side to argue for, just starting discussion. I forgot about the Mr.Smith conversation but it is pretty along the lines.

I thought of humans as infections ever since I learned of where babies come from - sperm infecting the ovum. That's how it was described to me!

Tell me this though.. even if viruses had the ability to think and free will - what would they do otherwise? Are not humans programmed in the similar fashion to think and make conscious decisions to eventually perpetuate their own self-preservation?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Tell me this though.. even if viruses had the ability to think and free will - what would they do otherwise? Are not humans programmed in the similar fashion to think and make conscious decisions to eventually perpetuate their own self-preservation?

~

What can I say. That's nature. I doubt we'll stop with our exploitations any time soon. Even the free will we supposedly have hasn't stopped us. So I see no reason why'd they's stop. Whether this is some subconscious obsession or not, but to me all such discussions are directly connected to the big questions about life, the universe and everything. You know? Self-preservation for example. What is it, how does it appear and what does it mean? I don't see gods or design, but the way we perceive it makes me wonder where it's going.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Tell me this though.. even if viruses had the ability to think and free will - what would they do otherwise? Are not humans programmed in the similar fashion to think and make conscious decisions to eventually perpetuate their own self-preservation?

~

On a basic level, yes. Most of our decisions stem from the desire to assert our own existence, or to at least survive as effectively as possible and to create more of our own kind. On top of that though, we also have the ability to pursue other avenues of life that don't directly influence our survivability. The creation of art for personal pleasure is an example of this. To make art requires the use of time and resources that from a logical-survival standpoint could be spent instead to gather more food or materials for a safer shelter, and so on. It's true that by making art one might feel relieved of stress that would have otherwise hindered their ability to function as effectively as possible, but that would be a secondary consequence that wasn't the original intent of the artist.

But what else would a virus do instead? Die, I suppose. If a virus could think, and someone were to request that it stopped it's primary function, it might be very much the same as asking humanity to willfully commit mass suicide (eating being one of our primary functions).

The virus would need to make the decision to stop what it was doing, and decision requires some kind of motive/reason.
What would motivate the virus to stop? Does it care?

Better yet: Does humanity, as a whole, care?

Or maybe we do care, but have decided to accept the curse in lieu of the belief that the benefits of conscious experience of life outweighs the cost.

Regarding the working definition of life, here is what science writer Michael Brooks has to say in his book 13 Things That Don't Make Sense in the chapter on the subject:

How would you define life? Is it when a system reproduces itself? If that is the case, plenty of computer programs could be called alive, while plenty of people—sterile men and women, for example, or nuns—could not. Things that are alive consume fuel, move around, and excrete waste products, but so do automobiles, and no one would call them alive.

Schrödinger came to the conclusion that life is the one system that turns the natural progression of entropy, moving from order to disorder, on its head; living things are, effectively, machines that create order from disorder in their environment. This, to him, was the essence of the process that staves off the state of death. It is still not enough, though; a candle flame creates order from disorder in its environment and is patently not alive.

The physicist Paul Davies has perhaps done most to try to elucidate a definition of life, but he too remains stumped for a final answer. Instead, he considers life to have various characteristics, none of which defines life in and of itself, and many of which can also be seen in nonliving matter. In his award-wining book The Fifth Miracle, Davies lists these attributes—and their failings—as explanations or descriptions of life, rather than definitions. A living being metabolizes, processing chemicals to gain itself energy (as does Jupiter’s Great Red Spot). It reproduces itself (but mules don’t, and bush fires and crystals do). It has organized complexity—that is, it is composed of interdependent complex systems such as arteries and legs (in this way it is rather like modern cars). It grows and develops (as does rust). It contains information—and passes that information on (like computer viruses). Life also shows a combination of permanence and change— evolution through mutation and selection. Finally, and perhaps most convincingly for Davies, living beings are autonomous; they determine their own actions.

Others have added to this list. A living system must also be contained within a boundary that is part of the system, according to the biologist Lynn Margulis. Whichever way you look at it, though, the definition—or rather the series of suggestions and characteristics—is too vague to be really useful. In fact, attempts to define life are beginning to be seen as damaging. In June 2007 an editorial in the journal Nature declared that

one might have hoped that such perceptions of a need for a qualitative difference between inert and living matter—such vitalism—would have been interred alongside the pre-darwinian belief that organisms are generated spontaneously from decaying matter. Scientists who regard themselves as well beyond such beliefs nevertheless bolster them when they attempt to draw up criteria for what constitutes “life.”

The editorial was heralding the achievements of synthetic biology: the attempt to build life from its chemical components. This, in the establishment view, is the way forward for dealing with the fact that life does not fit into any existing modes of understanding. The question of whether it can succeed, though, is still wide-open.

But what else would a virus do instead? Die, I suppose. If a virus could think, and someone were to request that it stopped it's primary function, it might be very much the same as asking humanity to willfully commit mass suicide (eating being one of our primary functions).

The virus would need to make the decision to stop what it was doing, and decision requires some kind of motive/reason.
What would motivate the virus to stop? Does it care?

I don't think it would or should care. If it needs us to survive, and we can't stop it from infecting us, then that just means that in the long run we are inferior. There is no reason it should have to stop for our sakes.

I may have a colder view on the subject than most though. When it comes to humans and the planet most people don't agree with me. I do think we are hurting ourselves at the moment by destroying our planet, but that's only because its the only one we have at the this point in time. If we were to find a way to inhabit hundreds of other planets, I don't see why it would matter if we were to drain earth of resources and kick it into the sun. I personally wouldn't, but in a hundred million years I doubt anyone will care about Earth if we are inhabiting the galaxy. It really just becomes a sentimental thing at that point. Kind of like grandpa keeping his World War II helmet.

As for sperm infecting the egg...you could equally say the egg is absorbing the sperm. After all, the egg steals DNA from the sperm and uses it to complete itself and replicate. Without absorbing a sperm it would die.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

If it needs us to survive

What constitutes need? Why would it need to, for what purpose?

We want to live, but we don't really need to. The universe does not demand our existence, and as I've stated earlier, we have the ability to override our basic survival instincts by taking our own lives. Suicide occurs every day, all over the planet. Once you have the choice to do one thing or the other, needing becomes a matter of opinion.

If you want to specify that a virus's need to exist stems from what is required for another system to operate in a certain way (ie: The honey bee species needs to exist in order for the ecosystem to remain balanced, or: I need money in order to eat), then need can be justified within that system. Beyond the system, though, you have to ask yourself why the ecosystem "needs" to exist, or why you "need" to eat. In the end, it's like the 5 year old that keeps asking their parents "why", until there is no solid, justifiable answer left.

Why do I need money? To eat.
Why do I need to eat? To stay alive.
Why do I need to stay alive? To experience the world.
Why do I need to experience the world? Because I enjoy it (or out of fear of death).

And then you realize that everything we do stems from preference/desire. If you can give a decision-making creature enough reason to do something so that the outcome appears desirable to it, that creature will eventually pursue that path.

The virus would not need to survive. It would want to survive under the condition that survival is the most desirable scenario.

the intelligent viruses should be in an equilibrium -- they need a host, no?

then again, the universe is large enough to find another planet i suppose, but without being able to travel it seems stupid to be so on the edge teetering and still destroying it.

Originally Posted by Invader

The virus would not need to survive. It would want to survive under the condition that survival is the most desirable scenario.

I didn't say it needs to survive. I said it needs us in order to survive. If it doesn't want to survive, it can choose not to. Since the question is whether or not it should choose to stop infecting us, I still think it doesn't have any reason to. According to your argument, neither us or the virus needs to survive, we just both want to. But since some viruses can't survive without us dieing, the question is just is it immoral to want to survive at our expense. As I've been saying throughout the thread, I still think the answer is no.

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

I didn't say it needs to survive. I said it needs us in order to survive.

I read what I quoted you on over and over (quite a few times, I might add), and only now did I see the word "us". Isn't that curious... I stand corrected, and disturbed at my newfound reading impairment. Disturbed indeed...

Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy

But since some viruses can't survive without us dieing, the question is just is it immoral to want to survive at our expense. As I've been saying throughout the thread, I still think the answer is no.

Typically a virus can kill its host and still spread from one person to another, and it may do it slowly enough so that it doesn't impact the death rate vs. birthrate to the point that the virus would ever have to worry about running out of people to spread to.

But does your answer apply to human beings as well, that it is immoral to want to survive because it comes at the expense of the life we consume in order to accomplish such a feat?

Originally Posted by Invader

But does your answer apply to human beings as well, that it is immoral to want to survive because it comes at the expense of the life we consume in order to accomplish such a feat?

I've been trying to say its not immoral to want to survive at the expense of other organisms. If the only way to survive is to kill another organism, then it is not wrong to kill that organism.

Right. I read your post again. I think this is what dyslexia feels like.

Originally Posted by DuB

Regarding the working definition of life, here is what science writer Michael Brooks has to say in his book 13 Things That Don't Make Sense in the chapter on the subject:

And thanks for that quote. I felt the 'reverse entropy' was the best explanation so far, but how does a candle create order from disorder in it's environment? I mean, paraffin wax burns with the presence of oxygen just like any other combustible fuel, and the heat eventually disperses. Do you understand what the author meant by that? Yarr off-topic questions.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If a virus knew that it was making people sick and even possibly killing people, ought it stop infecting people? Why?

~

If a certian species knew they were making the whole world sick, and risk destroying it in the process of exploiting it, shouldn't they stop?

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

If a certian species knew they were making the whole world sick, and risk destroying it in the process of exploiting it, shouldn't they stop?

Yes. But the real question is: will they?

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Yes. But the real question is: will they?

There are infinite variables. Whatever happens, does so under the correct conditions.

I remember listening to someone's DMT experience on the radio. He was talking about how he was in an airplane, and when he looked outside of his window he saw nature, beautiful and pure. Eventually he was some kind of large brown growth in the middle of it. It was a large city (I think it was LA he was speaking of). The large growth had a main central core, and just kept expanding outward consuming nature. In the end he compared it to cancer, that we are the cancer of this planet.

And then you realize that everything we do stems from preference/desire. If you can give a decision-making creature enough reason to do something so that the outcome appears desirable to it, that creature will eventually pursue that path.

It's the sad truth. Even higher conscience has not figured a way around this. We're slowly killing our planet because it provides us with leisure in doing so.

Should we stop eating meat? We're killing too.

So, no. I don't think they should stop.

Originally Posted by blade5x

It's the sad truth. Even higher conscience has not figured a way around this. We're slowly killing our planet because it provides us with leisure in doing so.

Higher consciousness by far has transcended this. But it is not that it has not been realized at all, but that the global collective consciousness is presently not powerful enough for it to be a wide-spread commonality.