Homo Sapiens: Earth's Cancer?
Mantrid
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
in Discussions
I've been thinking about it recently, and I have begun to notice similarities between the spread of humanity and various <a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:cancer' target='_blank'>definitions of cancer.</a>
Cancer starts as an abnormal growth in one spot.
Humans develop something wildly different from any other species, a city, in one place (Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers).
Cancer spreads to other parts of the body.
Over the course of time, humanity has spread outward from Africa.
Some cancers convert other cells into cells that will produce more cancerous growths.
Humanity reshapes its environment to create agricultural areas, housing, medical care, et cetera, to allow a greater number of humans to be born and stay healthy.
Cancer can ultimately be fatal.
Humanity is well on its way to depleting the Earth's resources, and has already made much of the air and water toxic, while also destroying large forests and other natural establishments.
Is it possible that we will become like so many "unsuccesful" diseases, and kill our "host"?
Cancer starts as an abnormal growth in one spot.
Humans develop something wildly different from any other species, a city, in one place (Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers).
Cancer spreads to other parts of the body.
Over the course of time, humanity has spread outward from Africa.
Some cancers convert other cells into cells that will produce more cancerous growths.
Humanity reshapes its environment to create agricultural areas, housing, medical care, et cetera, to allow a greater number of humans to be born and stay healthy.
Cancer can ultimately be fatal.
Humanity is well on its way to depleting the Earth's resources, and has already made much of the air and water toxic, while also destroying large forests and other natural establishments.
Is it possible that we will become like so many "unsuccesful" diseases, and kill our "host"?
Comments
Yes we are prolific and are the most abundant species in terms of biomass (except plants), but we are not a cancer. Human growth will very likely not grow beyond 10 billion, not because we can't, but because we choose not to. Countries like Italy, France, and China all have declining populations, while the US and Canada are barely replacing their populations.
The reason is because wealth and affluence cause people to have LESS children. The best 'weapon' against population growth is global economic stability in all countries. Your comments about rampant ecological destruction, again, are more applicable to poor countries that rich countries.
And we can't stop. That's like telling a tiger to stop killing animals.
Notice how extremely painful it is for the woman?
Consider that there is always that chance that the woman can die whilst giving birth?
Apply this analogy to the earth. If the earths ecosystems should die, mankind will be forced to either find a new world and start afresh (and hopefully learn from the past) or terraform the earth.
The end result is in any case positive. Short term suffering for long term gain. The earth gets to spread it's life outward.
Mass extinctions are a fact of life. Although we are causing these extinctions they are not unprecedented (Permian extinction anyone?) and in all cases life simply picks up the pieces and keeps on keeping on.
You may prefer to view man as a kind of cancer or disease on this earth and you are entitled to your view. However, I prefer to view man as a kind proliferation system by which life will spread and diversify like never before. Neither view is superior, nor do they invalidate one another. They are simply views.
We could do better, I do admit, but remember we are still in the post "Eco UnFriendly" era. We still have industries that belch out polution and most of our energy still comes from unrenewable processes.
It will take some time to move our society to a more eco friendly focus. Hell, hydrogen fuel cells recently became viable in cars and it isnt going to be commonplace for another 50 years minimum (barring a major increase in petrol prices of course).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We are not a cancer because, unlike cancer, we have the choice to stop and start helping the earth, benefiting it and caring for it. A cancer could never do that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Until we decide to make that decision, we're technically defineable as cancer. Another thing: regardless of the ability of choice, we will remain a cancer until we meet the specifications of a symbiotic relationship with the earth, whereby we will have made that choice. Just because we have a choice doesn't mean we make it.
Yep, as long as the men of power decide to ignore the environmental damage caused by humans, we are like a cancer on the Earth. And once we're able to colonize other planets, we'll be like a virus. I trust you all know how those work.
#1. Humans are not abnormal, by either creationist or evolutionist standards.
By creationist standards, we are god's ultimate creation, and by evolution nature created us.
#2. Humans stop growing just like any other animal population does. Any other animal population will grow like nuts, but once the enviroment cannot support any more of said animal, the population of the animal stops growing.
The same is true for humans.
Anyone who's taken a high school biology class (or AP bio class) and does not know this simple fact should be ashamed.
The same is true for humans. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is humans DON'T do that. When our environment runs dry, we move on to another one. That's why we're on every landmass in the planet. When the entire planet runs dry, is when humanity will die. Like in cancer, when cancer has taken over and sapped the entire organism, then it dies.
The point is that cancer doesn't even have the choice. It is simply following a set of instructions in its warped genes, like a computer program. All it knows is what it does. Humans have the choice. They are not automatons, living by a set of rules in thier DNA, they make choices. Whether they make the choice or not is a different matter entirely. They have the ability to make the choice, that is what distinguishes them from cancer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The thing is humans DON'T do that. When our environment runs dry, we move on to another one. That's why we're on every landmass in the planet. When the entire planet runs dry, is when humanity will die. Like in cancer, when cancer has taken over and sapped the entire organism, then it dies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. Once the entire earth and any other possible habitable location is at its completely maxed out capacity, humans will start dying faster than being born. eventually, an equilibrium wil be reached.
The same is true for humans. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is humans DON'T do that. When our environment runs dry, we move on to another one. That's why we're on every landmass in the planet. When the entire planet runs dry, is when humanity will die. Like in cancer, when cancer has taken over and sapped the entire organism, then it dies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is true of all species. All animals expand thier existance to the farthest possible range that is easily habitable. The only differences between humanity and animalia in this respect are:
a) humans have an uncanny ability to survive anywhere. For thousands of years people lived on the artic fringes of the world while at the same time others lived in the hottest tropics. No other species has done this without the aid of man.
b) no other animal is capable of destroying an ecosystem nearly as finally as human beings are.
All other animals will exist as prominently as they can, man is just the most potentially dangerous to earth.
Call animalia a cancer. If you don't belive that life is a natural occurance on earth, sure.
a) humans have an uncanny ability to survive anywhere. For thousands of years people lived on the artic fringes of the world while at the same time others lived in the hottest tropics. No other species has done this without the aid of man.
b) no other animal is capable of destroying an ecosystem nearly as finally as human beings are.
All other animals will exist as prominently as they can, man is just the most potentially dangerous to earth.
Call animalia a cancer. If you don't belive that life is a natural occurance on earth, sure. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just took out two of the large reasons why this thread exists in the first place. You can't look at humanity and take out parts, and then say we act exactly like every other species. We have not only the means, but the will to destroy all life we come across, whether "for the good of the human race", or "for the hell of it".
Viruses/cancers are not sentient. They are more living robots than anything. They will seek out resources and grow because it's the only thing they know how to do. They cannot change themselves willingly, and continue exist by the good graces of natural selection. They don't budget their resources, and will always end up killing the host, and themselves.
Humans are different. They recognize the limitations of their surrounding environment and react accordingly. We adopt new technologies to increase our longevity as much as possible. At the first sign of our extinction we react.
For example human populations do not increase geometrically like those Malthusian cells and viruses. Not because we don't have the capability, but we make the concious realization that it would be our ruin if we do. While cancers and viruses robotically reproduce in the presence of resources, humans do the exact opposite.
Rich countries have lower birth rates than poor countries. I fact Spain and France are both in decline, and the US would be stagnant if not for immigration. It is estimated that human growth will settle in between 9-15 billion. Viruses do not settle for anything.
Look, most of this 'cancer' BS is the result environmentalists trying to be poetic and poignant, but it's just stupid. The human race is gaining huge ground, and so is the environment. Slash-and-burn farming needn't occur now that we have pesticides, GM crops, fertilizers, and machines. We can use the same land over and over again, which was impossible years ago. Earth is in far less trouble than 'they' would have us believe.
Unless you're particularly nutty and believe a cancer is anything that consumes resources and grows, because that includes every organism on the planet.
Like it or not humanity is neither purely good nor purely evil. You cannot simply see humanities badness without seeing it's good. What man can destroy, man can create anew provided enough time and effort.
I can sum up the environmentalist movement with one quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
--- CS Lewis<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Environmentalists often have no idea how destructive their policies are, or the words "trade off" and "cost".
I am only interested in saving the environment in as much as it will benefit humankind to do so. Environmentalists put the environment above humanity, and suggests some of us should 'die off' to make room for animals.
{Sigh}
Anyway, getting back on track. We are still mired in the thinking of the 19th century. Our society, economics and even science and art are all based on a system of thinking that essentially said that the resources of the earth were nigh unlimited. We finally broke out of that thinking in the 60's. THE 60's! That was only 40 years ago.
Like it or not it's going to be a long, difficult, painful and expensive process to gear our society to a point where we can coexist with the environment without destroying ourselves in the process. 40 years is barely a generation and although future generations have to suffer for our forebears thinking (global warming and whatnot) it will wind up good in the end provided enough initiative, will and effort.