Who is to say all of nature except humans stays in balance? Animals quite often cause an unbalance in nature which nature learns to accommodate. Take bat guano for instance. If it weren’t for the micro-organisms which break down the guano, the bats would fill caves up until they’re un-liveable.

It is not as if humans are not trying to clean up their act and fix the balance. We are in the process of learning to do so and to doubt that we can is to lose faith in humanity – the most powerful species on the planet.

But to be honest with you I appreciate what we have done very much. But then again, I can perfectly understand that it’s not the bestest thing that needs influence to be everywhere. I mean, the Inquisition thought the same thing — that their “stuff” (religion) needs to be spread… or the Europeans against the American natives and Aztecs, they considered their “art” or “cities” or “concepts” something which needs to be there at all costs…

The Inqusition saw people doing things very poorly, took over, and showed them a more efficient way. Agriculture. They may have been wanting to spread what held them together (religion), but in the end it is the agricultural way of life which stuck. Some people surely still hold true to Aztec culture and religion. Cultures change all the time. Religions die all the time. They didn’t lose much, but gained a lot. The south American population Exploded.

It is not that conquistadors wanted their concepts to be there, that is not why they came. They came because they wanted the land. They won because they were stronger and had horrific disease. Survival of the fittest. It is not too different from a lion killing an ibex in an open savana.

Now I am trying to be a bit objective and not place *our* values/art/advancements/whatever as a top priority. I can also realize that all things WILL come to an end, no matter what (billions of years though), so we can only be “judged” (take it metaphorically) by what we do anyway, not by the arrogancy of pursuing survival and spreading at ALL costs. (this “all” has a very wide meaning please pay attention).

Other animals do it, they only care about their own survival (well most of them). They have no idea about things most of the times, yet THEY are the ones who actually keep it in balance and not spread themselves, without even KNOWING! And because we know and are capable of reason, we don’t?? I’m sorry I just find that incredibly ironic and arrogant.

Right but we are in the midst of being able to maintain the balance.
Also, the number of species that have existed in the past is enormous. Who knows how well previous species were able to maintain balance. It might be that dinosaurs or trilobites threw the balance off so badly that it led to their extinction.

I know how noble the goal of spreading the Earth can sound but it always has consequences as we can see from “invasive species” we introduced — it seemed like a good idea at the time, actually noble, but I think we were just playing with stuff we don’t have a clue about and would be better if we wouldn’t influence things as much.

For example:

* 784 Number of species that have gone extinct in the wild since 1500 AD *
This is a very specific number… Doubt it’s accurate though

Other causes of species becoming endangered may be harder to reverse than habitat loss. For example, about half of all endangered species are in trouble at least partly because of predation or competition from invasive introduced species. Some of these introduced species – house sparrows, for example, which are native to Eurasia but now dominate many cities in North America – will dwindle away once the gardens and bird feeders of suburban civilisation vanish. Others though, such as rabbits in Australia and cheat grass in the American west, do not need human help and will likely be around for the long haul and continue to edge out imperilled native species.

As long as there remain fossils, a species can be brought back through clever techniques and some DNA cloning. It’s not possible now, and it only exists in works of science fiction, but so did flight 100 years ago. Also, by tweaking DNA you can turn on traits found only in similar species, so one species can be easily changed to a similar one with a small adjustment. Who says any animal is permanently extinct? Bones and teeth will one day be used to extract DNA and clone the beast back to life regardless of how long it’s been under.

And this is because of a “noble” goal (not even human-related necessarily! like deforestation).

This noble goal is a part of our nature. We invent, create, improve by nature.

My attitude for “exploration” drastically changed since I read about NASA “nuking” Jupiter (well some say it was impossible, still a possibility though). I have always had the opinion exploration involved only information and no active influence, I guess I changed my opinion. (so yes while I am against above-low colonization, I *was* an adept of exploration — until I found out it’s not so “neutral” as I thought it was).

I have never heard of nuking Jupiter. Did you hear about the aliens that made those triangle things in egypt? Oh, and before you stop reading, please don’t support 9/11 heartthrobs, it was all done by the government to make you hate brown people.

I have no problem whatsoever with science as long as it doesn’t alter or influence things based on what SOME wacky scientists think or estimate to be a worthwhile attempt or non-harmful approach or whatever activity happens in their skulls (not all obviously, they’re human too so they’re disagreeing a lot).

So basically you have no problem with science, as long as it is only done by people with no specific goal in mind? Why am I still reading this?

also take a peek at this: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/cool-video-human-virus.php
They used a bias term: healthy Earth. This is bias because the earth is not an organism like we are. It has no health, but a variety of ever changing climates. From a certain point in time species have been living upon the earth, but this does not mean that the earth is health. It means the environment is hospitable.

The video asks who knows what's next. Stupid question because we know that the most closest planets or bodies we might occupy are the moon and Mars. These planets already host no life, so the idea of a 'healthy' moon or healthy mars makes even less sense.

Summary is not that we need to be eliminated, but everything is good in moderation, as you probably know about your *body*. But somehow, humans do not do the same to their hosts (we can be classified as "cells" of the Earth -- more like cancer cells though, since we know no limits). Precisely because we ARE capable and aware of this moderation thing, it's why we avoid it, but we LIKE IT FOR OURSELVES, just not for let's say "Earth" or any other "celestial organism". Incredible hypocrisy...

It is not so simple, I do not believe it is possible to dumb things down so much. The human species does not have a hive mind. We are all independent, free thinking beings. Each and every one of us has a unique perspective, and no one has total control over the entire species as a whole. We are potentially getting closer to being able to have a world government where we can control everyone. But until that time, some people will disrupt the balance and there is little we can do about it. Again, as I said before there are other species right now and in the past which have upset the balance enough to endanger themselves. Every species needs a different sort of environment to prosper. I agree balance is necessary.

(after all, we all know not to eat too much, but just in moderation... or do you let diseases uncured in your body too?)
some people do not know better to eat too much. People gorged themselves to the point of vomitting, then they would eat more. Also, obesity is an epidemic in many countries. I try not to let diseases go uncured in my body, but some people do.... Why else do people die? It's not an entirely controllable thing … yet

But to be honest with you I appreciate what we have done very much. But then again, I can perfectly understand that it’s not the bestest thing that needs influence to be everywhere. I mean, the Inquisition thought the same thing — that their “stuff” (religion) needs to be spread… or the Europeans against the American natives and Aztecs, they considered their “art” or “cities” or “concepts” something which needs to be there at all costs…

Now I am trying to be a bit objective and not place *our* values/art/advancements/whatever as a top priority. I can also realize that all things WILL come to an end, no matter what (billions of years though), so we can only be “judged” (take it metaphorically) by what we do anyway, not by the arrogancy of pursuing survival and spreading at ALL costs. (this “all” has a very wide meaning please pay attention).

Other animals do it, they only care about their own survival (well most of them). They have no idea about things most of the times, yet THEY are the ones who actually keep it in balance and not spread themselves, without even KNOWING! And because we know and are capable of reason, we don’t?? I’m sorry I just find that incredibly ironic and arrogant.

I know how noble the goal of spreading the Earth can sound but it always has consequences as we can see from “invasive species” we introduced — it seemed like a good idea at the time, actually noble, but I think we were just playing with stuff we don’t have a clue about and would be better if we wouldn’t influence things as much.

For example:

* 784 Number of species that have gone extinct in the wild since 1500 AD *

Other causes of species becoming endangered may be harder to reverse than habitat loss. For example, about half of all endangered species are in trouble at least partly because of predation or competition from invasive introduced species. Some of these introduced species – house sparrows, for example, which are native to Eurasia but now dominate many cities in North America – will dwindle away once the gardens and bird feeders of suburban civilisation vanish. Others though, such as rabbits in Australia and cheat grass in the American west, do not need human help and will likely be around for the long haul and continue to edge out imperilled native species.

And this is because of a “noble” goal (not even human-related necessarily! like deforestation).

My attitude for “exploration” drastically changed since I read about NASA “nuking” Jupiter (well some say it was impossible, still a possibility though). I have always had the opinion exploration involved only information and no active influence, I guess I changed my opinion. (so yes while I am against above-low colonization, I *was* an adept of exploration — until I found out it’s not so “neutral” as I thought it was).

I have no problem whatsoever with science as long as it doesn’t alter or influence things based on what SOME wacky scientists think or estimate to be a worthwhile attempt or non-harmful approach or whatever activity happens in their skulls (not all obviously, they’re human too so they’re disagreeing a lot).

also take a peek at this: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/cool-video-human-virus.php

Summary is not that we need to be eliminated, but everything is good in moderation, as you probably know about your *body*. But somehow, humans do not do the same to their hosts (we can be classified as “cells” of the Earth — more like cancer cells though, since we know no limits). Precisely because we ARE capable and aware of this moderation thing, it’s why we avoid it, but we LIKE IT FOR OURSELVES, just not for let’s say “Earth” or any other “celestial organism”. Incredible hypocrisy…

(after all, we all know not to eat too much, but just in moderation… or do you let diseases uncured in your body too?)

The only difference between all other forms of life and us is that they have never gotten big enough to produce negative symptoms on the environment. Surely if any other life form, for example, maple trees grew so huge and became so populous, they would begin to cause problems with the Earth’s balance too. Nothing similar to the problems we cause, but symptoms of their own. All viruses have unique symptoms.

You asked me, Who wants humanity or mankind to have a long term future? Well I want to ask you: who doesn’t?

You think that I am an oppressor because I think humanity should survive?

No. I love the enviroment, I think it is so great we must carry it’s story on to other civilizations. We must be known. For if we are ever forgotten, it would be the greatest misfortune. All of Earth is just a waste. I believe that it is possible the Earth is beautiful, unique, and has a value. From every planet we can see, we are truely unique. Small, but unique. At the same time we know that the Earth will not be around forever. It will die and become consumed when the sun expands. If we do not preserve the story of earth, if we do not explore, document, and record everthing about it, then who will? Which species will evolve enough to spread our story? We can take a chance and allow another species to evolve and spread our story for us, is that worth the chance of not continuing our story? I would prefer that we be the ones to expand our reach and spread earth’s bounty to other planets.

There are millions of planets like us, but who is to say how many have life just like us? Who is to say that there is other life like us? We don’t know. We need to preserve and image of what we had, even if that means in the process the original state of environment will face some consequence.

Imagine what a great waste of all human effort is if we commit species suicide. The thousands of years of advancements. The beautiful music, art, and discoveries made. The huge strides we have made in getting along and exploring the earth. Yes, we are just a small planet. So it is amazing how such magnificent things can take place in such a small body. Mankinds duty is to preserve the story of Earth and all of its inhabitants so that it will never be forgotten. If you don’t want to be a part of it, you don’t have to. But you can’t stop the train once it’s started to roll. No matter how infectious your beliefs are, it is too late for your pessimism to take over.

A virus doesn’t *care* about the line, that’s what Smith said. Instead of living in balance, if you introduce an unstoppable virus it will just kill off every existing life form, and if it can exploit the resources (like we do), it will consume the planet as well. Then, if it can get out in space, it will consume more planets… that is, never having a balance and always crossing the line.

This is the major difference. So yes, we ARE viruses, a LOT more than other mammals, to use Agent Smith’s words.

you also said:

“If humanity is to have a long term future, it will likely consume Earths resources way beyond repair.”

And who the hell wants ‘humanity’ or ‘mankind’ or whatever you wanna call it, to have a ‘long-term future’? Surely you don’t really give viruses a long-term future when you inject those cures. As an objective reasonable being, I treat it the same. I’m not an oppressor, YOU ARE. Because you and your kin are the ones AGGRESSIVE that go out and EXPLOIT stuff, not us. I don’t give a shit that you think it’s “for humanity”. How is that different than tyranny? It’s always “for the tyrant” which apparently here it’s almost the whole sickening species.

I’m tired of people claiming that everyone is as selfish and acts like a virus. Not all humans do — and those like us who don’t, are *against* ‘humanity’ or ‘mankind’, something which seems to escape the idiots’ viewpoint. But that’s only because they’re not rational or objective enough to understand that we are not ’special’.

Human beings have a tendency to work as a virus.
As virus, that can multiply itself just by infecting other (living) organisms, human beings multiply themselves by (ab)using animals
and infecting the ecological system. Human’s food generally is the body of other animals; every person eats around hundred animals every year.
When he wants to keep himself warm he flays and skin the animals for their fur and put them on himself.

When she wants to compensate her ugliness she uses beautiful flayed furs and hangs them on herself.
Her make up details all have been produced with animal-tested and animal-tortured experiments.

Human’s social survival (his social life) works almost in the way as his biological life.

His civilisation and his culture fundamentally are built on the blood, body and a huge suffering of animals.

When he wants to cure his sick body, he injects his illness to the healthy body of animals. His entertainment, his satisfaction and his laughing come after the crying from suffering animals in circuses and in many other entertainment and hobby areas.

Virus can not move by itself, it rely on other organisms.
If we translate this “moving” to development in human society, we can ask ourselves how long this bloody civilisation can develop without animals.

The advanced viruses have developed mechanisms in order to hiding their existence from the immune defences in organisms.

The advanced human-virus has the same function: in their culture and languages they have developed lies, excuses, and explanations for their brutality in order to hide their abusing nature.

A virus has an excellent capacity to suit itself in the body of the organisms.

The human-virus has the same capacity on his suiting on the ecological system.

A virus has an ability for a drastic expansion at organisms expense.
The human-virus has the amazing abilty to expand his population on the earth, of course on animal’s expense.

The question is: what is the difference between the virus and human beings?

A virus is, like human beings, very intelligent. But on the other hand it has a fixed and closed nature.

You can not expect a virus do something else out of its functions. In this way a virus is very studpid. Human beings do the same.

Man does everything and uses all his possibilities, intelligence, culture, knowledge and technology to damage the earth and the ecological system.
A further continuing in this way can destroy hole the earth and the environment in which he himself is living on.
This is stupid that the human beings don’t see themselves as one part of the ecological system and just one habitant of the erath.
If he was intelligent enough, he would see himself in harmony with the others in the nature.
Up to now human beings has been most intelligent, exactly like a virus.
He can and must split his virus-liked shell and do something else which means to leave his primary capacity: his egoism.

Remmrit.com user has just tagged your post as theory!…