Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

[Aeson]

We aren't cancerous (or viral). Parasites, sure...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake


Kills the host rather than benefiting the host.

Human civilization won't kill the host even if we went all monty burns on the environment and clear cut all of the forests and killed off all of the land vertebrates. Humans at least would still be able to plant adapted crops and use agriculture to meet our needs.

What are your definitions of "benefiting" or of "killing" the host?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Aeson
We aren't cancerous (or viral). Parasites, sure...

In that metaphorical sense, every living thing is a parasite on "the environment". even plants.

Humans are omnivorous but not parasites.

[Geronimo]

Having said all of that, I find the extinction of charismatic species makes me sad and so I favor efforts at conservation.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
In that metaphorical sense, every living thing is a parasite on "the environment". even plants.

Try another sense, because that wasn't mine.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Aeson


Try another sense, because that wasn't mine.

Humans are not literal parasites either. what exactly did you mean by saying that we are parasites?

[Straybow]

What if global warming breaks the perennial Sahara high pressure system? An area the size of the US or Canada could become agriculturally productive.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Humans are not literal parasites either. what exactly did you mean by saying that we are parasites?

Some humans are literal parasites...

(And I mean that both metaphorically and literally. )

What I meant by saying we are parasites is that we exhibit the traits that define a "parasite" when viewed from a certain perspective. (Whereas most other species do not from that perspective... even literal parasites may not.) To put it very simply, in general humans change environments to suit them, rather than maintain equilibrium with the environment.

A parasite is an organism which depends on, or closely coexists with other organisms, and (generally) has a detrimental effect those other organisms, or at least doesn't contribute anything to the organisms survival. Actions humans have taken definitely fit when viewed in relation to various environments... clear cutting forests is a rather clear example. Something within the environment is required, and to get it the health of the environment we are exploiting is disregarded, and that particular environment is damaged or even completely destroyed.

(Even if it eventually would repair itself, it's undeniable that we have damaged it. Just as if you eventually rid yourself of a tapeworm... it doesn't mean it wasn't a parasite. It's not really a fair comparison, because in many cases a tapeworm does far less damage to the human body than humans have done in to their environments.)

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Blake
There's a cancerous plague of mammels on earth which kills off forest and such a lot quicker than it can grow.

I agree. We must kill all the beavers!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Aeson


Some humans are literal parasites...

(And I mean that both metaphorically and literally. )

What I meant by saying we are parasites is that we exhibit the traits that define a "parasite" when viewed from a certain perspective. (Whereas most other species do not from that perspective... even literal parasites may not.) To put it very simply, in general humans change environments to suit them, rather than maintain equilibrium with the environment.

A parasite is an organism which depends on, or closely coexists with other organisms, and (generally) has a detrimental effect those other organisms, or at least doesn't contribute anything to the organisms survival. Actions humans have taken definitely fit when viewed in relation to various environments... clear cutting forests is a rather clear example. Something within the environment is required, and to get it the health of the environment we are exploiting is disregarded, and that particular environment is damaged or even completely destroyed.

(Even if it eventually would repair itself, it's undeniable that we have damaged it. Just as if you eventually rid yourself of a tapeworm... it doesn't mean it wasn't a parasite. It's not really a fair comparison, because in many cases a tapeworm does far less damage to the human body than humans have done in to their environments.)

without exception no species maintains an equilibrium with it's environment. No species that I am aware of (with the possible exception of humans) modifies it's behavior to ensure coexistance with other species. Rather scarcity and competition cause populations of competing species to usually arrive at some sort of equilibrium. The only reason this doesn't happen so often with humans is that we are more adaptable than most species. Not because our species lacks some sort of innate peaceful coexistance mechanism that all other species use to not be "parasites".

Generally all species produce waste that is toxic to themselves and consume resources with the result that all species "destroy" their environment. How do you define "damage" to the environment?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
without exception no species maintains an equilibrium with it's environment. No species that I am aware of (with the possible exception of humans) modifies it's behavior to ensure coexistance with other species.

You're getting hung up on the intent and missing the effect. If a tapeworm intended to be friends and do your taxes for you... doesn't really matter... it's still just a parasite so long as all it's doing is leeching nutrients from your digestive tract.

Rather scarcity and competition cause populations of competing species to usually arrive at some sort of equilibrium. The only reason this doesn't happen so often with humans is that we are more adaptable than most species. Not because our species lacks some sort of innate peaceful coexistance mechanism that all other species use to not be "parasites".

Who's talking about peaceful coexistance? You're reading far too much into "parasite".

The simple fact is we harvest resources in a non-renewable manner. (Not all Humans do so individually, but as a species we definitely do.) Doing so often damages or destroys various environments. On this abstract level we're parasites. Doesn't matter why we act that way... it's still what we do.

Generally all species produce waste that is toxic to themselves and consume resources with the result that all species "destroy" their environment. How do you define "damage" to the environment?

Generally speaking an environmental change of some significance which interferes with the natural order of things. If you have a forest environment, and you chop all the trees down and the topsoil erodes away... you have destroyed that forest environment, most of the organisms that thrived there previously will not now.

If on the other hand... you pee on a tree... you haven't destroyed the environment. (Unless you drank something really, really nasty... ) But you're trying to equate taking a piss with clear-cutting a forest, and asking us what's the difference? Come on.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Aeson


You're getting hung up on the intent and missing the effect. If a tapeworm intended to be friends and do your taxes for you... doesn't really matter... it's still just a parasite so long as all it's doing is leeching nutrients from your digestive tract.



Who's talking about peaceful coexistance? You're reading far too much into "parasite".

The simple fact is we harvest resources in a non-renewable manner. (Not all Humans do so individually, but as a species we definitely do.) Doing so often damages or destroys various environments. On this abstract level we're parasites. Doesn't matter why we act that way... it's still what we do.



Generally speaking an environmental change of some significance which interferes with the natural order of things. If you have a forest environment, and you chop all the trees down and the topsoil erodes away... you have destroyed that forest environment, most of the organisms that thrived there previously will not now.

If on the other hand... you pee on a tree... you haven't destroyed the environment. (Unless you drank something really, really nasty... ) But you're trying to equate taking a piss with clear-cutting a forest, and asking us what's the difference? Come on.

A population of 6 billion organisms of roughly human size of any species would have a huge ecological footprint. Does that make them all parasites? How many trees on average does a human chop down? how many trees on average does a beaver chop down? Are beavers parasites? Do beavers ever plant trees? any tree farming on the part of beavers?

All species unchecked by competition or resource scarcity will change the environment for the worst from the perspective of suitability to that species. That doesn't mean that all species are parasites.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
A population of 6 billion organisms of roughly human size of any species would have a huge ecological footprint.

Of course. The question is what type of footprint?

Does that make them all parasites?

I already addressed the variation possible between individuals. Learn to read.

How many trees on average does a human chop down? how many trees on average does a beaver chop down? Are beavers parasites?

Again, you're confusing clear cutting with pissing on a tree. Until you figure out the difference, there's no hope for you.

All species unchecked by competition or resource scarcity will change the environment for the worst from the perspective of suitability to that species. That doesn't mean that all species are parasites.

It means all species which transcend those bounds have the potential to be very destructive. In essence, stop giving back, and just take. Like a parasite does.

Humans don't have to act that way even though we have mostly transcended those bounds, plenty of individuals don't in fact... But as a species our impact on various ecosystems has been very destructive. I don't care how you try to justify it, it's parasitic action to destroy an environment to get at the resources produced by that environment.

[Blake]

Parasites tend to be pretty good about not killing their hosts though, most do this through "deliberately" sabotaging their reproductive success. If you look at the life cycles of certain parasites, they can be downright contrived. If parasites could reproduce inside their primary host they would quickly kill the host and hence end their genetic linage, hence the only parasites which survive are ones with contrived life cycles.

Cancer does destroy it's host, cancer is something which expands beyond reason, self-propagation being an ends upon itself, the expansion disregards well-being of the organism and host.

Cancer:
2. any evil condition or thing that spreads destructively; blight.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Aeson


Of course. The question is what type of footprint?


I already addressed the variation possible between individuals. Learn to read.

Learn to write learn to read

please.

insults aren't helping. the fact that you 'already addressed the variation possible between individuals' shows that we have a two way failure to communicate. I never discussed variation between individuals I was talking about species as a whole.

Originally posted by Aeson
Again, you're confusing clear cutting with pissing on a tree. Until you figure out the difference, there's no hope for you.



It means all species which transcend those bounds have the potential to be very destructive. In essence, stop giving back, and just take. Like a parasite does.

Humans don't have to act that way even though we have mostly transcended those bounds, plenty of individuals don't in fact... But as a species our impact on various ecosystems has been very destructive. I don't care how you try to justify it, it's parasitic action to destroy an environment to get at the resources produced by that environment.

I don't object to labeling certain behaviors of humans as destructive in certain contexts. I DO object to labeling humans as parasites. It's wrong literally and figuratively or it's meaningless. ALL species destroy an environment to get at the resources produced by that environment. You seem to dance around this by claiming that it's a matter of scale. parasitism isn't a matter of scale however. Parasitism is a particular ecological niche. Parasites have a host. What is the host for humanity? the earth? All species are parasites of the earth in that sense. Why is there this urgent need to compare humans to unpleasant things when the comparisons are so grossly imperfect?

Human behaviors can be destructive but it's absurd to compare humans to parasites, diseases or whatever. And now I will bring up "individual variation". The problem with the blanket generalizations of humanity as a species are that they are fatalistic and therefore destructive. If you keep telling people that to be human is a be a disease or a parasite or whatever other adverse imagery is conjured up to make them hate their species eventually the result will be a pendulum shift against environmentalism. Why do we want to integrate environmental destruction as part of the definition of what it means to be human when we already can see that individual humans don't have to be environmentally destructive?