NationStates Jolt Archive

So, tonight A&E shows "The Matrix" and being the fan of Matrix that I am, of course I watched it, nevermind that I have the same movie on DVD hehe. Anyways, one of the best part of the movie was when Agent Smith was trying to get into Morpheus mind. He had a little speech where he says this.

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

Here is the YouTube Clip. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TboJUxTIaC4)

So what do you guys think? Are we a virus, do we even attempt to live in equilibrium with the environment or are we sucking the earth dry and leaving it for dead once we use it all up? I can see where Agent Smith was coming from, I mean humans do move to different areas and we do spread like a cancer, and so far we're making modest progress (at best) at conservation.

So is Humanity a plague on the planet?

As long as we're running Agent Smith quotes, this is my favorite one of all, in Matrix: Revolution. It really is a powerful speech, and the way that Hugo Weaving did it, wow, I wish this speech was on YouTube, but sadly, it isn't.

Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more that your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?

Humans are the dominant species with insufficient predators to keep its population in check. While we romanticize it about how we "destroy our planet" similar results can be seen in deer when their population grows too big.

Humans, on the other hand, are alone in their ability to 1) recognize it, 2) attempt to do something about it 3) have the intellect and capacity to continue to overpopulate without doing what normally happens in those circumstances, which is starve and die.

Humans are the dominant species with insufficient predators to keep its population in check. While we romanticize it about how we "destroy our planet" similar results can be seen in deer when their population grows too big.

True, but if you look at how the human population spread across the planet and how viruses spread across a human body (something I looked at in Anatomy class this semester), it's very similar and eerie.

I don't know about you, but I'm relatively certain that no part of my life cycle involved me and a few thousand of my siblings erupting out of a giant cell, destroying it in the process.
But I guess I could just be unique in that respect.

Every species does this; put a breeding population in an environment with a significant surplus of resources and it will grow exponentially until it hits a critical threshold and declines back down to a sustainable level. Of course, it's important to note this decline usually involves a painful period of starvation, suffering, and mass death.

Humans are just capable of better developing ways to get around the limits that would otherwise impede our growth, so we'll keep on growing until we consume all available resources (which is, of course, impossible in the long term). There may be intermittent short term supply problems and associated suffering, but the longer term always involves humans adapting and overcoming a given barrier and growing exponentially until it hits the next one. Viruses, of course, aren't quite so lucky and eventually either kill their host or are killed by its immune system. Viruses adapt quickly, but not as quickly as humans...if they were capable of doing so, we'd be killed off in a manner quite similar to The Stand.

Yes, humans are a virus and a plague. Our shitty systems of civilization where we believe order is more important than individuality and that stupidity is not a disease has totally ruined natural selection.

We're not viruses.
We're just the first species to (mostly) beat natural selection.
This has the same consequences as stat maxing in a video game.

Every species does this; put a breeding population in an environment with a significant surplus of resources and it will grow exponentially until it hits a critical threshold and declines back down to a sustainable level. Of course, it's important to note this decline usually involves a painful period of starvation, suffering, and mass death.

Except Earth's wealthy humans aren't procreating. The ones scraping by are the ones populating the Earth. ;)

We're not viruses.
We're just the first species to (mostly) beat natural selection.
This has the same consequences as stat maxing in a video game.

Beating natural selection was the worst tragedy to ever happen to the human race.

I suppose there are a lot of ways to look at this. One way I always thought interesting was that humans are Earths greatest accomplishment. We may cover the planet however if you look at life on Earth as having the sole purpose of survival humans are it's best chance. Of course if we dont kill each other off or some other catastrophe wipes us out we will be the ones continuing the planets life forever. Humans will leave Earth taking plants and animals with us to the far reaches of our galaxy and maybe beyond. That is the ultimate accomplishment isn't it? Earths species will outlive the planet most likely. We may change and evolve however we originated from Earth.

Except Earth's wealthy humans aren't procreating. The ones scraping by are the ones populating the Earth. ;)

Wealth doesn't evaporate when a person dies. That wealth is transferred to heirs or taxes and many times given to charity where it is redistributed.

Beating natural selection was the worst tragedy to ever happen to the human race.

You know, a little bit of me died when I read that.

I would not expect such an utterly misanthropic opinion to come from you, FSA.

Beating natural selection was the worst tragedy to ever happen to the human race.

Not at all in fact it has helped us as a survival mechanism for our species.

Wealth doesn't evaporate when a person dies. That wealth is transferred to heirs or taxes and many times given to charity where it is redistributed.

And? I was responding to the idea that a surplus of resources = exponential growth of a population - not quite the case.

True, but if you look at how the human population spread across the planet and how viruses spread across a human body (something I looked at in Anatomy class this semester), it's very similar and eerie.

that's only because humans on the planet and an unchecked virus in the body have the same general conditions. Abundance of resources and lack of predators.

It's basic exponential growth, that, while shared by both viruses and humans, is also shared by basically every other life form there is. As long as birth rates are larger than death rates, this will happen. The only reason it happens to humans more than other animals is that humans figured out two things: 1) medicine which allows us to survive longer, and; 2) agriculture and hunting which allowed us to largely circumvent the largest limiting factor in population growth, that populations outgrow their food supply and starve, dropping their population down

And? I was responding to the idea that a surplus of resources = exponential growth of a population - not quite the case.

My bad. I guess this is what I get for not reading through everything. ;)

Virus? Not really.

OMG HAX! Yes indeedy.

My bad. I guess this is what I get for not reading through everything. ;)

No problem. I thought I'd lost the thread of it myself, at this hour. :p

And? I was responding to the idea that a surplus of resources = exponential growth of a population - not quite the case.

not quite literally exponential. For a population to be literally exponential, two offspring must be produced for every person. Our population growth isn't literally exponential (the average birth to death rate is something like 1.15 or something like that worldwide, for an exponential population growth, the birth to death ratio needs to be 2:1) but it is positive.

not quite literally exponential. For a population to be literally exponential, two offspring must be produced for every person. Our population growth isn't literally exponential (the average birth to death rate is something like 1.15 or something like that worldwide, for an exponential population growth, the birth to death ratio needs to be 2:1) but it is positive.

That's true, although the increase is better than exponential in many parts of the developing world.

No, humans reproduce themselves internally rather than implanting their DNA in the cells of other organisms to rewire those cells to produce more viruses.

not quite literally exponential. For a population to be literally exponential, two offspring must be produced for every person. Our population growth isn't literally exponential (the average birth to death rate is something like 1.15 or something like that worldwide, for an exponential population growth, the birth to death ratio needs to be 2:1) but it is positive.

That's really not the case. If people had 2 children each, 4 for a monogomous couple, the population would double each generation creating an exponential growth pattern, but that's not the only way to achieve exponential growth. If everybody had 3 kids you'd have an x^3 exponential growth pattern, and if everybody has 1.1 children you'll get an x^1.1 exponential growth pattern. It's slower but a larger population after each generation with the same percentage growth from generation to generation is by definition exponential.

So, tonight A&E shows "The Matrix" and being the fan of Matrix that I am, of course I watched it, nevermind that I have the same movie on DVD hehe. Anyways, one of the best part of the movie was when Agent Smith was trying to get into Morpheus mind. He had a little speech where he says this.



Here is the YouTube Clip. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TboJUxTIaC4)

So what do you guys think? Are we a virus, do we even attempt to live in equilibrium with the environment or are we sucking the earth dry and leaving it for dead once we use it all up? I can see where Agent Smith was coming from, I mean humans do move to different areas and we do spread like a cancer, and so far we're making modest progress (at best) at conservation.

So is Humanity a plague on the planet?

As long as we're running Agent Smith quotes, this is my favorite one of all, in Matrix: Revolution. It really is a powerful speech, and the way that Hugo Weaving did it, wow, I wish this speech was on YouTube, but sadly, it isn't.

Animals don't have a "natural sense of equilibrium", they're simply constrained from domination by predators, lack of food supplies, insufficient number of mates, etc. Humans are simply animals that have overcome these problems. Oh yeah, and viruses don't build civilizations

Animals don't have a "natural sense of equilibrium", they're simply constrained from domination by predators, lack of food supplies, insufficient number of mates, etc. Humans are simply animals that have overcome these problems. Oh yeah, and viruses don't build civilizations

Right. Humans are simply far too effective at surviving and reproducing all over the place for our own good.

Right. Humans are simply far too effective at surviving and reproducing all over the place for our own good.

Not in Europe. Reproducing, that is.

Not in Europe. Reproducing, that is.

Not any more, all of the developed world has slowed down. But over the entire course of human history we've seen huge growth spurts, in some places exceeding the capacity of a population to feed itself.

Those parts of the world that are currently growing the fastest, India, Africa, and the Middle East, will slow down same as the developed world has, just as soon as they decide that having nice things is better than having 5 children at least.

I don't think human are parasite; we do our part in keeping the Earth living (though we are exploiting her resources too much).

However, I do know that the Matrix is a movie. 'nough said

Right. Humans are simply far too effective at surviving and reproducing all over the place for our own good.

We used to be good at survival. Now our only means of survival is the way knowledgeable people, 'the strong of mind' tend to protect the weak ones of society.

Nowadays I am sometimes ashamed to call myself human.

Natural selection is a necessity.

So, tonight A&E shows "The Matrix" and being the fan of Matrix that I am, of course I watched it, nevermind that I have the same movie on DVD hehe. Anyways, one of the best part of the movie was when Agent Smith was trying to get into Morpheus mind. He had a little speech where he says this.



Here is the YouTube Clip. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TboJUxTIaC4)

So what do you guys think? Are we a virus, do we even attempt to live in equilibrium with the environment or are we sucking the earth dry and leaving it for dead once we use it all up? I can see where Agent Smith was coming from, I mean humans do move to different areas and we do spread like a cancer, and so far we're making modest progress (at best) at conservation.

So is Humanity a plague on the planet?

As long as we're running Agent Smith quotes, this is my favorite one of all, in Matrix: Revolution. It really is a powerful speech, and the way that Hugo Weaving did it, wow, I wish this speech was on YouTube, but sadly, it isn't.


Thats funny, I just watched the Matrix, and asked that same question. Have you ever seen the 2001: A space Oddessy series? In later movies that goes heavily into the "are humans viruses" thingys

I'd say humans are more along the line of a mutualistic parasite nowadays. If we overextend the metaphore a bit, we were parasites that just took, but our host started to suffer extensive damage, so we 'evolved' to keep ourselves alive until such time as we can find a new host.

So what do you guys think? Are we a virus, do we even attempt to live in equilibrium with the environment or are we sucking the earth dry and leaving it for dead once we use it all up? I can see where Agent Smith was coming from, I mean humans do move to different areas and we do spread like a cancer, and so far we're making modest progress (at best) at conservation. They must not have ants in the Matrix.

Thats funny, I just watched the Matrix, and asked that same question. Have you ever seen the 2001: A space Oddessy series? In later movies that goes heavily into the "are humans viruses" thingys

Seen? :headbang:

Never judge a book by it's movie.

And is it a series if they only ever made 2001 & 2010 -- and the latter was a shaky adaptation that didn't even get breathed on by Stanley Kubrick?

No, humans reproduce themselves internally rather than implanting their DNA in the cells of other organisms to rewire those cells to produce more viruses.

That would be awesome, and that reminds me that I need to see Alien at some point.

No, we are not viruses. A virus is a distinct form of semi-life with definitions that being multi-cellular organisms we do not satisfy,.

And it's a stupid point being made anyway, like so humans have yet to reach an equilibrium with their environment? Well neither have rabbits in Australia, are rabbits viruses? :rolleyes:

That's what happens when ANY new species arrives and thrives in an environment not adjusted to it. Like humans are somehow unique in that respect...

Agent Smith wasn't right. He was right that humans do consume resources, consume and consume, but not that other animals don't. They don't "develop and instinctive equilibrium with their surrounding habitats." It's just that the ones who over-hunt (for example), die of starvation. The ones who hunt, but not enough to deplete the food population, do not die of starvation. It's just evolution, and we're no different.

The only major difference is humans have intelligence which allows us to (for example) over-hunt to such extremes, in such short times, that evolution doesn't have a chance to work right away. But it will. One day we'll be sitting there trying desperately to make a new ecosystem out of bacteria and plankton and reminiscing about myths like "fish."

But none of this has anything to do with viruses. As I'm sure it's been pointed out, viruses are microscopic organisms and humans are not.

Humans are the dominant species with insufficient predators to keep its population in check. While we romanticize it about how we "destroy our planet" similar results can be seen in deer when their population grows too big.

"The world was begining, the fires of the earth were calming, and water was created, taking up a vast amount of space, leaving the rest of the rock to be uncovered; land. A scientist went out to study this new world, and saw a jellyfish off shore. He went out to talk to the jellyfish. "What is your creation story?" The jellyfish replied, "What? Our creation story is the creation story." The scientist chuckled. "O.K., then please tell me." "Certainly, the gods created the earth, which then created bacteria. They then evolved to algea, which then finished with us, jellyfish." The scientist chuckled again. "You mean to tell me that jellyfish are the end of creation?" "Yes" replied the jellyfish. "Nothing more has come, so we must be the final life."" - Ishmael

Besides, deer decline in a population after a while, we have failed to do so.

Besides, deer decline in a population after a while, we have failed to do so.Yeah, via starvation after they've ruined their habitat...

I'd say humans are more along the line of a mutualistic parasite nowadays. If we overextend the metaphore a bit, we were parasites that just took, but our host started to suffer extensive damage, so we 'evolved' to keep ourselves alive until such time as we can find a new host.

Mars look out.

Yeah, via starvation after they've ruined their habitat...

Indeed. Here in Colorado our hunting season actually has quotas on the number of deer and elk to bring down each year in order to keep their populations in check since the wolves that used to do that are no more.

The reason humans spread across the globe was because we have technology which we can adapt to any environment, far quicker than animals can. We then began to alter the environment itself on a massive scale.

Actually, we may become the FIRST species to live in equilibrium with nature - as a means of survival. If we alter our behavior, we will no longer cause mass environmental damage that ends up affecting humanity.

Actually, we may become the FIRST species to live in equilibrium with nature - as a means of survival. If we alter our behavior, we will no longer cause mass environmental damage that ends up affecting humanity.

Yes because we have to. We are probably on the cusp of learning that equilibrium. We also are on the verge of bringing back extinct species and preserving ones that are already here. If Earth were a living thing we would be the ultimate survival mechanism. I even saw a show on tv about how we are going to have to move Earths orbit out near mars when the sun begins to die. To me that is the ultimate life form for a planet if it can protect it from being destroyed and make sure it lives on forever.

Not so much viruses as parasites, I'd say. Human beings damage their environment while serving no useful purpose for it.

Not so much viruses as parasites, I'd say. Human beings damage their environment while serving no useful purpose for it.

We are the only species on the planet with the ability to protect it. I would say that is a useful purpose.

of course we're a virus...

*Infects NSG*

We are the only species on the planet with the ability to protect it. I would say that is a useful purpose.

If you're referring to moving its orbit, we're not currently capable of doing that. And I call "rubbish" on that. Unless I'm much mistaken, the expansion of the sun will consume Mars, so moving the Earth closer to Mars will achieve exactly nothing. And even if, by some unconceivable miracle, our distant descendants were able to shift Earth's orbit all the way towards Jupiter without destroying our nice blue ball in the process, the Earth would continue to exist... but it would be uninhabitable. Life as we know it exists on Earth because our planet is precisely the right distance from the sun, and the sun is precisely the type of star we need. When it becomes a red giant, it won't be sustaining life on our world any more.

Setting aside sci-fi fantasies, my point stands: our species is essentially parasitical.

Humans cannot "destroy the planet"; this is a misconception. Sure, we can make alterations to the biosphere of the planet; damaging alterations to the composition of the atmosphere, decimate populations of animals, destroy forests; such effects as raising the average temperature of the surface conditions, ocean level rise... But all this means absolutely NOTHING, speaking in relation to the "planet"... Anything we do could just as easily kill us off... But the "planet" will keep on going on...

Not so much viruses as parasites, I'd say. Human beings damage their environment while serving no useful purpose for it.

Define useful purpose. What animal does serve a useful purpose?

Define useful purpose. What animal does serve a useful purpose?

Most animal species are of use to one another. Thus they serve a useful purpose within an ecosystem. The human species, by contrast, does not.

Most animal species are of use to one another. Thus they serve a useful purpose within an ecosystem. The human species, by contrast, does not.

And what useful purpose does the ecosystem serve?

And what useful purpose does the ecosystem serve?

It preserves the lifeforms which are a part of it, of course. If you push that argument to its limit, nothing serves a useful purpose. Hence you need a frame of reference. It is correct to say that most species are useful not only to themselves but to others as well. Humans are not.

It preserves the lifeforms which are a part of it, of course. If you push that argument to its limit, nothing serves a useful purpose. Hence you need a frame of reference. It is correct to say that most species are useful not only to themselves but to others as well. Humans are not.

So you are saying that humans are parasitic because they are destroying the ecosystem whilst not adding anything useful to it?

Most animal species are of use to one another. Thus they serve a useful purpose within an ecosystem.

A useful purpose? No species have a purpose, they operate on self-interest and survival.

The human species, by contrast, does not.

But humans create their own ecosystems. You may have a preference for a pristine forest, but a city is an ecosystem as well. But that is taking the argument to the extreme. Fact is that there is hardly any ecosystem on earth that hasn't been touched by humans, especially by agriculture. In Europe a large number of birds have disappeared because land use has shifted from agricultural use to nature / recreation sites. They do worse because humans are retracting from those areas.

So you are saying that humans are parasitic because they are destroying the ecosystem whilst not adding anything useful to it?

Yes.

A useful purpose? No species have a purpose, they operate on self-interest and survival.

There's no contradiction between serving a useful purpose and operating on self-interest and survival. You're relying on the mistaken assumption that serving a useful purpose must be done knowingly, willingly and deliberately.


But humans create their own ecosystems. You may have a preference for a pristine forest, but a city is an ecosystem as well.

The difference is that the latter is created by destroying the former.


Fact is that there is hardly any ecosystem on earth that hasn't been touched by humans, especially by agriculture.

My point exactly.

If you're referring to moving its orbit, we're not currently capable of doing that. And I call "rubbish" on that. Unless I'm much mistaken, the expansion of the sun will consume Mars, so moving the Earth closer to Mars will achieve exactly nothing. And even if, by some unconceivable miracle, our distant descendants were able to shift Earth's orbit all the way towards Jupiter without destroying our nice blue ball in the process, the Earth would continue to exist... but it would be uninhabitable. Life as we know it exists on Earth because our planet is precisely the right distance from the sun, and the sun is precisely the type of star we need. When it becomes a red giant, it won't be sustaining life on our world any more.

Setting aside sci-fi fantasies, my point stands: our species is essentially parasitical.


The program was very clear on the steps that was needed to move the planet. It is over a billion years in the future. At that point humanity will be so far advanced if they are still around that they will be able to move the planet. They calculate it out now so that tells me that in a billion or more years moving this rock wont be that difficult. Also the sun doesn't die overnight it will take a long time for it to actually explode as you say. The life zone will move out towards the outer planets and our current orbit will be to hot to survive. Before it blows however there is about a half billion years where we need to move this rock to live on it.

I don't buy the line that we are parasitic. That to me is rubbish.

The program was very clear on the steps that was needed to move the planet. It is over a billion years in the future. At that point humanity will be so far advanced if they are still around that they will be able to move the planet. They calculate it out now so that tells me that in a billion or more years moving this rock wont be that difficult. Also the sun doesn't die overnight it will take a long time for it to actually explode as you say. The life zone will move out towards the outer planets and our current orbit will be to hot to survive. Before it blows however there is about a half billion years where we need to move this rock to live on it.

That's a heck of a lot of hypotheticals. Predicting the future hundreds of millions of years from now is not exactly a precise science. And even if things do turn out that way, saying "humans are not parasites today because in a few billion years they will do something useful" doesn't make much sense.


I don't buy the line that we are parasitic. That to me is rubbish.

Please be more specific.

Do viruses eventually kill off the organism they inhabit and therefore destroy themselves?

If so, humans are becoming eerily similar in that respect.

The best part about that quote is that it takes him like 5 minutes to say it. It does have some truth to it.

The best scene in that movie is the lobby shootout because it shows that checkpoints don't do shit.

We used to be good at survival. Now our only means of survival is the way knowledgeable people, 'the strong of mind' tend to protect the weak ones of society.

Nowadays I am sometimes ashamed to call myself human.

Natural selection is a necessity.

This is precisely the point. Humans broke the survival curve so badly that we can afford to look after the weakest among us who provide nothing to the survival of the species. We even spend time and resources protecting animals that we may have been in direct competition with in the past, or that preyed on our distant relatives.

Without a rewrite of the rules humans will continue to sit biologically stagnant due to the complete lack of physical challenges to be overcome.

Do viruses eventually kill off the organism they inhabit and therefore destroy themselves?

If so, humans are becoming eerily similar in that respect.

Ineffective viruses kill the host before they can spread. Ebola, for instance, isn't a pandemic because it kills its hosts far too quickly.

An effective virus will also eventually kill its host, but it can take a long time and spread to many new hosts during that time. Some don't ever get to the point of killing their hosts, but fester for the rest of their natural lifetime merely as a nuisance like herpes.