| Blogs > Hypnosis |
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
My question to you guys is what you think about this whole idea. Poll: Are Humans Bacteria Upon the Earth? (Vote): Yes, we ruin the earth through our bacterial ways. (Vote): No, we are just the dominant species (Vote): I have a different opinion (please explain) Discuss!   | ||
|
Dr.Lettuce
United Kingdom663 Posts
| ||
|
Rice
United States1332 Posts
| ||
|
Dr.Lettuce
United Kingdom663 Posts
| ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
Actually our intellect may be our own downfall. :s | ||
|
Dr.Lettuce
United Kingdom663 Posts
| ||
|
topspinserve
United States147 Posts
| ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
 | ||
|
Zozma
United States1626 Posts
But there is no doubt that some human actions harm the earth. | ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
On November 18 2009 01:58 Dr.Lettuce wrote: That's not true DwmC I kill small children and animals for fun, there is no monetary gain for me. Which brings me to my next point : maybe we just love conflict, killing, ... :p | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
| ||
|
samachking
Bahrain4949 Posts
You wrote a long paper not knowing whats the difference between a parasite and a bacteria? You do realize that without bacteria we wouldnt exist and most bacteria are actually useful to the world oO What are you majoring in or are you still in High School? I suggest changing bacteria to parasite immediately and actually search up the words on wikipedia. Also btw if you are including non living objects + ecosystems in your definition of a parasite most organisims will be parasites in one way or another inevitabely for their source of energy/metabolism/materials/resources for growth/synthesis. So yeah even though it sounds like a good metaphor the idea is pretty meh, but you can work the paper as a symbolic representation of the rather large negative influence our species is inflicting upon this world. Research your paper more, and if this is not for a general english class you have to rewrite most of this stuff. | ||
|
Johnny B
United States76 Posts
| ||
|
UGC4
Peru532 Posts
edit: and one last thing...if ur trying to make it seem like "destroying the earth and using up its resources" is a horrible thing, u have to prove that its a horrible thing. and u have to prove why a human cutting down a tree is so much more horrible than an ant eating a little leaf. ur really just jump-starting your paper from the popular point of view of "omg humans are destroying the planet we are so bad" and thats weak. not too long ago humans used to think the earth belonged to them and it was in their rightful nature to exploit it, and some still do (i, for one, agree with this to a certain extent). after all, we are all living organisms, and we have to utilize resources to survive. unless ur advocating to the extermination of the human race. then i'd be interested in your paper. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
| ||
|
Neivler
Norway911 Posts
A virus does not live on its own as a bacteria does. A virus infests another bacteria, thats the only way they can survive. So u can change the bacteria with the earth. A bacteria itself can be a good thing, but some are not. But they dont live off other sources as a virus does. My English there might not be good enough but watch this clip from the Matrix. This might give u some tips  | ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
On November 18 2009 02:11 samachking wrote: OO? You wrote a long paper not knowing whats the difference between a parasite and a bacteria? You do realize that without bacteria we wouldnt exist and most bacteria are actually useful to the world oO What are you majoring in or are you still in High School? I suggest changing bacteria to parasite immediately and actually search up the words on wikipedia. I didn't think about the definition of bacteria and confused it with parasite. I'm a sophomore in college majoring in engineering. Also my idea was more of a figurative parallel than a scientific definition because the Earth, although it is "living" it is not biologically an organism in itself. 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... Its for english comp 2 which is a general english class that I hardly care about but i still want a decent paper. | ||
|
biomedical
235 Posts
so you kinda fail unless you wanna write a load of toss lol | ||
|
samachking
Bahrain4949 Posts
On November 18 2009 02:20 Hypnosis wrote: I didn't think about the definition of bacteria and confused it with parasite. I'm a sophomore in college majoring in engineering. Also my idea was more of a figurative parallel than a scientific definition because the Earth, although it is "living" it is not biologically an organism in itself. 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... 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. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
Edit: Well, seems from above others have already steered you away from bacteria. | ||
|
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 States32051 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 States6225 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 States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On December 28 2009 05:17 Hypnosis wrote: i know don;t worry Yeah, unfortunately you bumped your blog and everyone who reads it is going to momentarily forget it's the middle of winter holidays and you couldn't possibly still need advice T.T | ||
|
RLTY
United States965 Posts
Topicwise, I think that we are bacteria in that we live to be, just as any other organism does. We're not ruining it rather we're doing things that are beneficial for us that have negative effects on the earth; where as other animals are doing things that are beneficial for them that is percieved as having a "natural" effect on the world. | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On November 18 2009 01:57 DwmC_Foefen wrote: We're just the dominant species, and the reason we pollute kill destroy everything is all because of money and stuff (basically concepts which originated from our own minds). Actually our intellect may be our own downfall. :s Nukes or Robots | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
| ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
I would say yes. The question "are humans bacteria" makes no sense because biologically speaking, of course not, and metaphorically speaking, not all bacteria are harmful. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11552 Posts
all of you | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
" 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. " You will fail at logic trying to Prove this. The Earth does not give a fuck about how we "harm" it, it also does not give a fuck about its inhabitants. If earth has a pocket full of fucks, and every single human is handing over a cliff about to fall to their death, and looks up to earth and ask " would you plz give me a fuck???" Earth will no doubt and reply " Too Bad for you guys, But you know, I don't give a fuck" We human are the one who actually giving a fuck, we give a fuck not because we are trying to save the planet, it is because we want to save ourselves. Consider the following, Human as a specie has been existed on earth for a friction of the 4.6billion years of age. It had been here for long long time, way way before any human developed critical thinking ability. The planet does not give a shit what we human do, it doesn't care how much CO2 we releases, how much nuke we drop on each other, it will still be there at the end of the day, and will be here for a long long time after human as a specie gets wipe out. Then who cares about the planet?, WE DO!!!!!. Why??? Because we want to survive, we don't want to go away, we are the only specie that do not need to adapt to the environment we live in, we change our environment as we see fit. You need to stop using phases such as "Saving the environment saving the Earth", because the earth and its environment does not need you to save, WE DO. when you use those phases what you are really saying is "save the humans from themselves" But if my words are not entering your ear, or perhaps they are existing your left ear right after it enters your right, then maybe George Carlin have more credibility than I do around here. | ||
|
Kwidowmaker
Canada978 Posts
The word you're looking for is parasite. And we're not that either, sorry. Sure you can weaken the definition of the word to include humans, but then all animals are parasitic. Every husband is parasitic. Every business is parasitic. Essentially all you'd be doing is destroying a word that has a niche use | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
| ||
|
GrayArea
United States872 Posts
| ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On December 29 2009 11:22 GrayArea wrote: bacteria are prokaryotes. humans are eukaryotes. On a more fundamental level, bacteria is a domain level classification, where as human (homo) is a genus level classification, or a species level classification (sapiens). | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
CSO Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
