EPT[poll] Are Humans Bacteria? - Page 2
| Blogs > Hypnosis |
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
| ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
On November 18 2009 02:26 samachking wrote: I added a bit on your topic by editing my post, the thing is, as an objective metaphor while including a-biotic systems within the definition of a parasite, every living thing( to my knowledge, there might be exceptions) is a parasite since they consume resources, although they give back resources in their own way, its still usually not a symbiotic relationship completely. A better way to do this paper is to think of the biosphere as a zero-sum game of parasitism and limited resources, and we humans at the top of the chain consume the most resources and hence are the greatest parasites to this world, thats a cool spin on it. edit:English class, I suppose if the teacher isnt too picky just go with it, its a nice metaphor. If she is gay about it she probably has too much time on her hands. I am going to re work my thesis and see what I can come up with. I guess there is a reason I couldn't find research on it because it makes no sense; that's what I get for half assing it haha. | ||
|
UGC4
Peru532 Posts
| ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
| ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
We are just the dominant species although we probably will destroy Earth eventually. | ||
|
Amarxist
United States371 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32153 Posts
| ||
|
Try
United States1293 Posts
It's like saying dung beetles are "shit parasites" | ||
|
Try
United States1293 Posts
On November 18 2009 03:05 Amarxist wrote: Even bacteria have their purpose, we're just fucking shit up. Lets live it up. What purpose? We "fuck shit up" because we need resources to survive. Edit: I just noticed your name. Marxism is retarded. From each his capability to each his needs my ass. | ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
On November 18 2009 03:09 Hawk wrote: Your teacher isn't going to look favorably on an online, anonymous poll.... and you probably want to stay away from a really abstract analogy that's just a total bite off of the matrix. its ok my teacher likes me alot so ill probably get a B or A no matter what but only if i put a little more effort in. And this is a survey it doesnt matter where i got it. | ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
As a species we have a negative effect on biodiversity. We introduce flora and fauna to evironments outside their natural range where they run rampant. Some subspiecies are created by us as pets and livestock. These only add to the problem. We destroy biotopes. We even endanger ourselves by destabilizing the whole planetwide ecosystem as a whole. A parasite destroying its host? Overshoot | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
I doubt you can consider humans as polluters any more than cyanobacteria. Consider how 3.4bya, when life first began, most organisms were anaerobic. They hated oxygen, and lucky for them there was very little oxygen around. Yet in 2.7bya, cyanobacteria came about and were able to undergo photosynthesis. This benefited them: they have a massive source of energy available to them, and all that happens is that they produce some oxygen instead. Of course, oxygen is toxic to a massive amount of the organisms at the time, and the resulting mass oxygenation event resulted in the mass deaths of unknown numbers of anaerobes. That is definitely a source of pollution, but nobody seems to give a flying fuck that humans are doing the same thing (as a natural process), except that unlike cyanobacteria we actually are trying to do something to mediate our effect. Yet we have this mentality to compare ourselves to a pox on the earth, when in fact we should compare ourselves to algae. They have reduced biodiversity as much as we have, changed the atmosphere as much as we have, and yet we're not on a manhunt to destroy all the cyanobacteria. Go figure. | ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
On November 18 2009 03:58 Caller wrote: I think that this topic is too inherently biased to be able to write a fair paper about. Writing about something that you yourself are taking part in means you have an inherent bias, whether it is in favor of your side or against it. I doubt you can consider humans as polluters any more than cyanobacteria. Consider how 3.4bya, when life first began, most organisms were anaerobic. They hated oxygen, and lucky for them there was very little oxygen around. Yet in 2.7bya, cyanobacteria came about and were able to undergo photosynthesis. This benefited them: they have a massive source of energy available to them, and all that happens is that they produce some oxygen instead. Of course, oxygen is toxic to a massive amount of the organisms at the time, and the resulting mass oxygenation event resulted in the mass deaths of unknown numbers of anaerobes. That is definitely a source of pollution, but nobody seems to give a flying fuck that humans are doing the same thing (as a natural process), except that unlike cyanobacteria we actually are trying to do something to mediate our effect. Yet we have this mentality to compare ourselves to a pox on the earth, when in fact we should compare ourselves to algae. They have reduced biodiversity as much as we have, changed the atmosphere as much as we have, and yet we're not on a manhunt to destroy all the cyanobacteria. Go figure. Yea there is an obvious bias too because I am a human and only see things from a human perspective. You can say that about anything pretty much. The thing about this paper is that it is meant to get me thinking and looking up information on some specific topic which I am doing so i am not too worried about it. That is a good idea though, I could have a massive counter argument to my initial thesis that totally disproves it and points out the flaws then work backwards from there and flip the entire thing around. Thanks | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6228 Posts
The by-products and pollutants that we're spewing from our machines and technologies aren't so much a plague to life on earth so much as it is a plague to ourselves. By changing the environment that we evolved to thrive in we're stabbing ourselves in the foot. Of course, there are many other animals that we're also stabbing in the foot with our actions, but our habits are not going to wipe out life. At worst, the rapid climate shift would wipe out a majority of the species, and those that it didn't wipe out will likely thrive and evolve in the new world. Whether or not we're going to be a part of that is yet to be seen. Furthermore, the very definition of "parasite" or "bacteria" excludes the human race. We made up those terms to define micro-organisms. The observed similarities between what we do and what those organisms do are no more significant than the observation that we fuck the same way monkeys fuck, we eat fish like bears eat fish, we live in shelters we create just like the pygmy boar of India lives in it's own shelter, etc. | ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
 But I agree, they're pretty much B.S.+ Show Spoiler [Didn't read whole thread] + I am trying to prove that Humans are actually a bacterial infection upon the Earth and all we do is harm it and its inhabitants. Almost everything we do pollutes the ozone: We burn fossil fuels, cut down trees (it releases CO2 at a much more rapid rate than normal), contaminate water with our chemicals and we build cities that ruin the natural land (LOL LOS ANGELES). What does ANY of that have to do with bacteria? I was thinking though maybe I could bring up the idea that some humans are good bacteria while most are bad. For example "environmentalists" could be considered good for the earth and oil companies could be bad bacteria, this way I don't run into the problem of arguing that environmentalists are still parasites. I did consider the word parasites but bacteria seemed more fitting for some reason... This just sounds very convoluted... I think you're looking at bacteria and parasites as inherently bad, which is just wrong. | ||
|
darkmetal505
United States639 Posts
- We have membrane enclosed nuclei/organelles - We don't have peptidoglycan in our cell walls - A bunch of other stuff ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Vt3b9.jpg) | ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
| ||
