From: Wings of the Morning (nectar@landmarknet.net)
Date: Thu Dec 18 1997 - 15:05:23 MST
> Viruses have no "purpose." They exist to replicate, period.
> Whatever they do to the host is either a side effect or used as a
> replicative advantage. (You sneeze, friend gets sick)
>
Things evolve for a purpose. If you look at any living thing you can clearly see that.
Perhaps they did come to be just to replicate, but I think the idea that they came about as a
natural means of controling population is just as feasable. Think about what happens to
animals in a certain area when there is an outbreak of disease. Animals will die, and when
all the animals are dead, the virus will die out too. (once the population is contained, no
more need for the virus, it goes bye bye, until more animals come along, plus the fact that
since animals spread disease, the more animals there are, the easier it is for a virus to be
transfered, the lower the population, the harder) But yes there's no real way to prove
sucessfuly prove if what I'm saying or if what you're saying is true or not.
> > We keep finding cures and more lethal and complex diseases arrive. A
> > sign maybe?
>
> A sign of evolution, yes. A sign of some higher "balance and
> harmony of nature" that you keep eluding to, probably not.
>
Again the same thing. When animals ruled the earth so to speak, populations were usually
kept in balance with nature and the natural surroundings by how much life could be supported.
With no real need for viruses and disease, and there weren't as many complex forms of it. Now
here we are, evolving and in the process discovering ways to combat the effects of disease, so
in turn the disease has evolved too. Again can't be proven I know.
> > thought it was an interesting point to touch upon. Ever notice it's universally
> > accepted that basically man was meant to conquer the earth, and that the earth was
> ^^^^^
> ... Not on the Extropians mailing list, it's not.
>
Well then what do you think we're trying to do when we continue to progress and make
technological, evolutionary, agricultural, etc., advancments? Trying to replenish the worlds
natural resources? Trying to make the world a place where animals, people, and plants can
live together in a natural state? Trying to expand the mind, yes. And it seems, correct me
if I'm wrong, that these advancments we make on a whole, seem to entail trying to reach a
perfect system of living, a utopia, where through the wonders of technology there is no more
pain, suffering etc. But without an overly strong concern for animals and the earth, not to
say that there isn't a concern there, because there is. Who knows maybe we'll reach that
state of living, and everything will be in perfect balance, and woo hoo for us. But at the
rate we're going I just think it's questionable that we'll make it, and that all different
perspectives should be considered, which is basically why I try to make the arguments that I
make, I don't think that anything should be overlooked.
> > why. There are laws to life and balances. If we don't abide by them, something's bound
> > to happen. We keep progressing, and searching for new technology, but to what end? And
>
> Please 1) List some or all of these "laws to life" (as I am sure
> the Santa Fe Institute would love to know them) and 2) the basis for your
> belief in them.
>
It's apperent in nature. If you study wild animals and the way they live, study
ecosystems, there are certain "laws" to life that have been set forth by nature. The food
chain, balance of predators and prey, etc. What happens when you upset one of these balances,
and so called "laws"? Hmm well let's see. Take predators and prey for example. Wipe out all
the predators in within an ecosystem and the prey will flourish, soon there won't be enough of
a food source to sustain the out of control population, starvation will set in, and they will
begin to die off. If you kill of all the prey, that's fairly easy, there won't be enough of a
food supply to support the predators. I'm not going to go into everything obviously, but
that's what I mean by "laws of nature". Pick up a copy of the book, Ishmael, sometime.
> > for them. They are content, they take what they need, and give back. They follow the
> > balance. Now if they can survive in peace with nature for that long, it's damn amazing
> > feat. And when we come and wipe them out with our guns, to take their land and
> > resources for our expanding population it's actually quite sickening. That system of
> > living, all that knowledge, down the drain.
>
> Though your rant reeks of the "Beautiful People Myth," I won't
> mention much about that, as I am only vaguely familiar with it, but enough
> to avoid believing in it.
Pick up the book Mutant Message Down Under by Marlo Morgan sometime.
> Next, their survival is not an "amazing feat." Those cultures that
> couldn't sustain themselves died out. Natural selection filtered out the
> rest, and we're left with those that work... a few primitive cultures, and
> a lot of more advanced ones. Personally, I'd rather be in the latter
> category when it comes to matters of healthcare.
>
I'm not speaking of the ones that have died out, I'm speaking of the ones that continued
to survive, and all without threatening the integrity of the earth, and that we have managed
to erase from the face of the planet. The ones that would continue to survive and have
continued to do so, if we didn't get involved. They have been filtered out by us yes, and we
automatically assume our way of life is far superior. What I'm saying is, is it really? It's
all we know. Personally I think our way of life is amazing yes, and it allows us to sustain
ourselves very well, and make amazing discoveries and accomplishments. But its also a very
arrogant way of life that doesn't respect our surroundings overly, and has amounted with our
ability to become our own undoing if we're not careful. I think we need to make sure we
consider all sides to avoid such a thing from happening.
-Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:14 MST