The humans as a virus metaphor is one I’ve seen before in various radical environmental tracts; you know, the ones that seem to be seceretly hoping for the extinction of the human race. It antedates “The Matrix,” and some of those tracts made Agent Smith seem reasonable and begnin by comparison.
Basically it’s no more than a metaphor, and its validity depends on your point of view. Obviously No one, including Agent Smith, means that Humans are tiny semi-living entities composed of DNA and protein. The most common use is in the “Gaia” hypothesis, where the earth is regarded as a harmonious self-regulating organism, and humans are disruptive influences, although this would make humans more like cancer than a virus, since we arose on this earth.
Although this viewpoint is extreme and absurd, we should be careful what we do, not because we owe a responsibility to some mythical “Gaia,” but because we owe it to posterity.
Also the notion of equilibrium seems to be a model derived from our observations of other species, which exist in predator-prey relationships, or are otherwise constrained by natural forces over which they have no control. Since Humans are not threatened by predators and have managed to assert a fair degree of control over our environment, I’m not certain that the idea of equilibrium applies to us.
We are no more a virus than Cane Toads. In fact I like that Cane Toad analogy. Did anyone see the documentary? We’re always having sex, we’re dangerous to other creaturs. we’re pretty funny looking, people make amuzing movies about us, there are statues dedicated to us all over the world, some people like us, some people dislike us, some people go out of their way to kill us.
Can anyone else think of some good ones?
You bet your sweet bippy equalibrium applies to us, Larry. Just not as obviously. Our biggest concern is our own success. To wit: We’re outgrowing our ability to sustain ourselves. Even though by 2025 (I think) our food production ability will have exceeded our rate of increase, there will still be massive amounts of hunger, mainly in regions where a traditionally nomadic population has been forced into agriculture on land that lacks the resources for it. And it isn’t just food, either. Take a look around and you’ll see that no new land is being made. At least, no new arable land. So that raises a concern: Do we use land for farming, or do we use it for housing? We need both. And looking at the fact that only 2% of all Americans farm, and that the small farmer has been having a tough time since, say, the 1930s, the condos win out. We will need to look into hydroponics much more seriously, perhaps sectioning off some of the ocean to do it. That or learn to live in places like the oceanic shelf or in high orbit. And since humans have a historical dislike for controlling their own numbers, expansion into space seems like the only feasible option. I think deep-ocean colonization will have to wait until we’ve learned some things about making small colonies self-contained from space exploration. So, yes, we do have to worry about equilibrium, just not in the same way a deer would have to. BTW, equilibrium does not mean stasis. Stasis means the system has died, usually at the lowest possible energy state (everything’s dead). Equilibrium means the system is self-sustaining.
As far as the equilibrium thing, I do see your point, as it does depend on the time frame you are observing for anything in equilibrium. So back to the OP… I’d have to agree that any species will expand its habitat as far as it can, and humans have simply not reached that limit. The other argument A. Smith made was that we both consume all the resources in an area and move on. But aren’t there some other animals that can over-populate areas and eventually make them uninhabitable? I doubt humans and viruses are unique in that the respect either.
Huh? A nit-pick perhaps, but are you saying that viruses did NOT arise on this planet?
As I was saying, I think all species have this potential, but humans are the best (worst?) at it. Other species’ populations tend to die off if they can’t adapt or move on. So, there is a balancing of numbers.
Some other species that consume all & move on…locust, herd animals, some bacteria, etc.
Humans may be unique in the sense that we will stick around in the uninhabitable areas and simply send each other the resources we need from the nicer areas (like, for all cities).
I’ll assume you’re kidding. But, FWIW, I’ll agree with wevets. Humans need an ecosystem in which to live. So, killing off other species willy-nilly like is a dangerous game. Of course there is the “magnificence” of it all (unless you happen to enjoy a world consisting only of cockroaches and pigeons), but at the very least, you have to admit that other species provide the food we eat and the air we breath. No them, no us.
what ive always found interesting is that in movies where they show the future it’s either dark and overpopulated or sunny and perfectly in balance. i know how it could get dark, but how do you propose we get it pretty? when will people get their act together and clean up this place? another thing, in those movies w/prefect earth futures, the people are wealthy and there are no homless or poor or anything else. does this mean that in the future we will embrase social darwinism and kill off the undesireables there by cleaning up the planet?
Unless I’m misunderstanding something, which is highly likely because I have a headache, the “humans as cancer” makes more sense. Look at these two analogies (SAT format!).
Virus:Human and Human:Earth
The virus originated outside of the human, and then had to travel to the human before it could start doing damage. The Human, on the other hand, originated on the Earth, where it could begin doing damage.
off the topic, but in Star Trek’s bright and sunny future, they did it by abandoning money & working for the benefit of self improvement. of course, having replicator technology makes that much easier! (ok, now the trekkies/trekkers can correct me)
The premise behind the Star Trek future world is that nanotechnology has made humans able to turn nearly anything into useful materials with no need for human labor. What is the point of having farms when a replicator, essentially a nanite factory working with plans, can turn out a perfect meal after being fed some soil? After you learn to create things at the molecular level most problems begin to disappear. One beef with the whole Star Trek universe: Why in the hell are people still aging in a civilization that has created advanced nanotechnology? Age is a disease. It can be cured by having nanobots in the body constantly fixing cells. Such an arrangement would also cure cancer and any of the other infectious, chronic, genetic, or degenerative diseases. In other words, nanotech will cure all disease when it comes. Kind of makes me want to see the real 25th century.
The nanites revolted and formed their own government after Riker had one too many STD’s. The turning point was the Battle for Genital Wart 327. The nanites, disgusted to begin with at the locale, mutinied after tremendous casualties were incurred taking the hill, only for it to be given up and retaken twice with an even higher body count.
Eventually the nanites molecularly erased memory of themselves and nanotechnology from the brains and computers of all involved, and they retired to a deserted island in the South Pacific, living out their days and sucking down Pina Coladas.
