News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Microbe extinction

Started by TomFoolery, November 02, 2015, 01:33:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

peacewithoutgod

Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2015, 08:02:37 PM
I watch Alex Jones, only to see what the CIA is using to debunk what is really going on.
If you have time for that nimwit, then you really should spend more of it paying attention to what wiser people say here and less posting the trash from inside your own head. Everything which you have demonstrated misunderstanding of has been clearly explained at least 100x since I've been around this site, which is no more than you have been here.

Some time today I know it's going to happen - the pattern with you, whenever you lose an argument and at last you know it, is that you still cannot acknowledge the fact, and still you haven't the good sense to shut up. So what you do is post something completely unrelated which nobody can make sense of and it's not worth pursuing - thereby you get the final word, and the wall between you and reality remains intact. It will either happen within the next couple of days, or you will at long last open your head to actual reason, possibly for the first time ever. I am of course betting on the former, understanding how you have demonstrated complete indifference to any honest or sensible discourse.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Baruch

I am not an Alex Jones regular ... nor do I agree with him.  There are many sources of information and disinformation.  One has to compare and contrast ... one learns by experience to distinguish bullshit from roses.  But you can't do that ... with only roses.  And the bullshit is useful for fertilizing the rose bushes.  But I knew if I mentioned Alex Jones, I was more likely to get a rise out of someone, than I would if I had mentioned a more obscure source ;-)  Thanks for taking my bait ... I just need to reel you in .. don't spit out my hook ;-))
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

peacewithoutgod

#47
Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2015, 12:54:10 PM
I am not an Alex Jones regular ... nor do I agree with him.  There are many sources of information and disinformation.  One has to compare and contrast ... one learns by experience to distinguish bullshit from roses.  But you can't do that ... with only roses.  And the bullshit is useful for fertilizing the rose bushes.  But I knew if I mentioned Alex Jones, I was more likely to get a rise out of someone, than I would if I had mentioned a more obscure source ;-)  Thanks for taking my bait ... I just need to reel you in .. don't spit out my hook ;-))
Were you expecting me to go on? You aren't worth it. I only argue these days with those who show a higher interest than throwing bullshit at other people's thoughts, pounding their chests and pretending they are the wiser for it.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

TomFoolery

Saw this today and thought it was oddly and appropriately timed:


The graphic above was created using information from a study that looked at host-pathogen relationships and their worldwide distribution. Each dot represents a different species. The larger the dot, the more types of pathogens each species interact with. The closer the dots, the more microbes the species have in common. The microbes in the graphic include bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasitic worms and single-celled organisms called protozoa.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/mapping-out-pathogens-we-share-animals0

So when we talk about deliberately exterminating from the planet a particularly bad pathogen for people, what do we end up doing to the ecosystem?
How can you be sure my refusal to agree with your claim a symptom of my ignorance and not yours?

Mermaid

This graphic is amazing. Interesting that the species that man created share the most pathogens with us.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

Baruch

Quote from: Mermaid on November 04, 2015, 07:57:33 PM
This graphic is amazing. Interesting that the species that man created share the most pathogens with us.

That shouldn't surprise.  When people first domesticated animals, they lived with us ... even after we lived in villages, the animals were brought inside (there were no separate barns).  So under those conditions, humans and their animals shared a lot of bugs back and forth, and needed to develop immunity to each others favorite bugs.  Today we usually start getting an intestinal ecology by swallowing dirt as small children .. and getting worms from the feces of our cats and dogs.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

peacewithoutgod

#51
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 04, 2015, 07:08:06 PM
Saw this today and thought it was oddly and appropriately timed:


The graphic above was created using information from a study that looked at host-pathogen relationships and their worldwide distribution. Each dot represents a different species. The larger the dot, the more types of pathogens each species interact with. The closer the dots, the more microbes the species have in common. The microbes in the graphic include bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasitic worms and single-celled organisms called protozoa.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/mapping-out-pathogens-we-share-animals0

So when we talk about deliberately exterminating from the planet a particularly bad pathogen for people, what do we end up doing to the ecosystem?
Which ecosystem? Is there one which has viruses in its food chain? If so, is it more important than human life, and who are you to decide whether it is? See, there's a "gotcha" with every hypocritical whine against human "arrogance", where you think you smell the cleaner for doing nothing and "letting nature take it's course", as if you weren't ass-deep in the nature yourself. There really is no such thing as "man" vs. "nature" - we are part of nature, and we should do what best serves humanity and the world which we wish to live in, because doing nothing for our future generations is no better and is usually worse. We don't want a world full of smog and no forests, and the forests need their diverse species of frogs and plants, so lets protect that - but why should we give a flying fuck about viruses which only fuck up everything which they can get their hooks into? I do not think we are talking about rabbits in Australia, for fuck's sake, but if you actually have a case to present to the contrary, I'll listen.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

TomFoolery

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 04, 2015, 09:40:21 PMSee, there's a "gotcha" with every hypocritical whine against human "arrogance", where you think you smell the cleaner for doing nothing and "letting nature take it's course", as if you weren't ass-deep in the nature yourself.
We stopped being ass-deep in nature when we started exploiting it for things we didn't need to survive. I had an argument ages ago why people needed to resurrect mammoths because we helped lead to their extinction 10,000 years ago. Sorry, but 10,000 years ago were just competing for resources just like everyone else. There weren't assholes at Exxon trying to dig up the tundra for more oil for our insatiable lust for the automobile: we were just trying to put food on the table. If you can't see the gross amount of human arrogance behind things like slash and burn farming and pollution so we can have cheap chocolate, clothes, oil, coffee, and rubber and a handful of humans can accumulate vast wealthy empires then I don't know what to tell you. We're not ass-deep in nature at all: we're floating on top of it on a raft made from the remains of ecological abundance and every so often just a few of us fall off when something like a tsunami or Ebola comes along.

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 04, 2015, 09:40:21 PM
We don't want a world full of smog and no forests, and the forests need their diverse species of frogs and plants, so lets protect that - but why should we give a flying fuck about viruses which only fuck up everything which they can get their hooks into? I do not think we are talking about rabbits in Australia, for fuck's sake, but if you actually have a case to present to the contrary, I'll listen.

Because viruses are parts of ecosystems that keep populations in control? We are talking about rabbits in Australia for fuck's sake, because rabbits, like viruses, are part of the ecosystem.
How can you be sure my refusal to agree with your claim a symptom of my ignorance and not yours?

stromboli

If you are talking about viruses, a virus requires a host to live in. Eradicating a virus does not eradicate the host body. A virus is one of the simplest and smallest of life forms. I don't see how eradicating a virus could do anything other than remove an unwanted organism. It is not in effect part of the food chain. The host body would be. If you are talking about microorganisms that feed algae for example, that is a different issue. But if a microorganism (in the generic sense) works contrary to or damages some aspect of the food chain- from protozoa to algae etc. to us, then removing it would not damage the food chain but protect it.

jonb

Quote from: stromboli on November 04, 2015, 11:19:10 PM
If you are talking about viruses, a virus requires a host to live in. Eradicating a virus does not eradicate the host body. A virus is one of the simplest and smallest of life forms. I don't see how eradicating a virus could do anything other than remove an unwanted organism. It is not in effect part of the food chain. The host body would be. If you are talking about microorganisms that feed algae for example, that is a different issue. But if a microorganism (in the generic sense) works contrary to or damages some aspect of the food chain- from protozoa to algae etc. to us, then removing it would not damage the food chain but protect it.

But without knowing how closely related or biologically similar the pest organism is to other species you cannot be sure any means you use would only effect that one species. Without knowing how species within an ecosystem relate to each other.

Little fact
QuoteHow much bacteria do people carry around?
Enough to fill a big soup can. "That's three to five pounds of bacteria," says Lita Proctor, the program coordinator of the National Institutes of Health's Human Microbiome Project, which studies the communities of bacteria living on and in us. The bacteria cells in our body outnumber human cells 10 to 1, she says, but because they are much smaller than human cells, they account for only about 1 to 2 percent of our body massâ€"though they do make up about half of our body's waste.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/fyi-how-much-bacteria-do-people-carry-around

Given that you could see yourself as an ecosystem, many of these microbes are essential to our life. We are moving towards being able to use biological means to kill species, but as yet our knowledge of how ecosystems work is desultory, as such if we master the ability to kill, but not the knowledge of how that action could effect the systems around the dead species then there is danger that such an action could spiral completely out of control.

GSOgymrat

For me, the moral part of the problem is based in human welfare. If eradicating a virus will be of overall benefit to humans then we should do so. The practical part at the problem is we don't always know the consequences of removing an element from a complex system. If we had the ability to eradicate mosquitos and chose to do so because they are disease carrying pests the consequences would be extensive because there are a lot of creatures that eat mosquitos and their larva. We also don't have the ability to create mosquitos and reintegrate them into biological systems after they are all gone, so once we eradicate something we can't undo it. Getting rid of mosquitos might appear in the benefit of human welfare but end up being worse for humans and our ecosystem overall. I would rather viruses and other harmful creatures be contained rather than made extinct because we can't replicate them and if these can somehow be of future human benefit they are available to us.

stromboli

I have big feet. I probably kill a zillion life forms every time I go for a walk.

peacewithoutgod

#57
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 04, 2015, 10:54:44 PM
We stopped being ass-deep in nature when we started exploiting it for things we didn't need to survive. I had an argument ages ago why people needed to resurrect mammoths because we helped lead to their extinction 10,000 years ago. Sorry, but 10,000 years ago were just competing for resources just like everyone else. There weren't assholes at Exxon trying to dig up the tundra for more oil for our insatiable lust for the automobile: we were just trying to put food on the table. If you can't see the gross amount of human arrogance behind things like slash and burn farming and pollution so we can have cheap chocolate, clothes, oil, coffee, and rubber and a handful of humans can accumulate vast wealthy empires then I don't know what to tell you. We're not ass-deep in nature at all: we're floating on top of it on a raft made from the remains of ecological abundance and every so often just a few of us fall off when something like a tsunami or Ebola comes along.

Because viruses are parts of ecosystems that keep populations in control? We are talking about rabbits in Australia for fuck's sake, because rabbits, like viruses, are part of the ecosystem.

We are no longer part of nature since when? Is it since we started making tools? There are animals in nature which make tools, and they aren't primates! Is it since we developed larger brains that we became no longer part of nature? There are whales which have larger brains than humans. Was Neanderthalensis, with its uncanny ability to learn through imitation, and also a larger brain than H. Sapiens more natural? How is what we do truly fundamentally different from the digging of holes or the building of nests and dams by other animals?

Quote from: TomFoolery on November 04, 2015, 10:54:44 PM
We stopped being ass-deep in nature when we started exploiting it for things we didn't need to survive.
Are you really serious? Those who harvest coffee, cocoa beans and tea aren't on survival wages? It's how human industry works, somebody was facing starvation and then he started a new industry when he exploited opportunities which he could take advantage of because he was the naturally-arisen animal H. Sapiens.

I'm not fucking with you, and I do believe that the word "nature" is itself an expression of human arrogance because it sets us apart from the whole which we are part of. We manipulate and alter our environment, as do many animals - ask any landowner who wants his stream and trees back from the beavers who turned it into a marsh in just a few years! We are of course no less guilty of arrogance than other creatures, and the example of rabbits in Australia was one such example - rabbits do NOT belong in the ecosystem there, or they weren't part of it before some very arrogant Brits introduced them <strike>as a means of curbing a different pest</strike> just because they felt like hunting rabbits! The result was disastrous. However, I've still not seen a good case presented by you that the targeted removal of specifically harmful viruses and bacteria would harm the food supply of anything that we want to keep around.

I like my chocolate, my coffee, my rubber tires which allow me to travel safely and fast, and then I like the Internet which allows us to have discussions such as this. While I believe strongly in doing as little harm as possible to maintain the life standards which we are used to, with strong consideration to preservation of anything which would be beneficial to future generations of sentient beings, I absolutely refuse to buy any misanthrope's guilt trip over the loss of life forms which we know do more harm than good to others. It's on account of our high intelligence and the power which it gives us that we do have certain responsibilities in managing earth resources and life ecosystems as well, somewhat like the long-abandoned Xtian philosophy of "stewardship". To just leave it all alone isn't possible anyway, and it would be irresponsible to try.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

jonb

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 05, 2015, 11:08:26 AM
We are no longer part of nature since when? Is it since we started making tools? There are animals in nature which make tools, and they aren't primates! Is it since we developed larger brains that we became no longer part of nature? There are whales which have larger brains than humans. Was Neanderthalensis, with its uncanny ability to learn from imitation, and also a larger brain than H. Sapiens more natural? How is what we do truly fundamentally different from the digging of holes or the building of nests and dams by other animals?

I'm not fucking with you, and I do believe that the word "nature" is itself an expression of human arrogance because it sets us apart from the whole which we are part of. We manipulate and alter our environment, as do many animals - ask any landowner who wants his stream back from the beavers who turned it into a marsh in just a few years! We are of course no less guilty of arrogance than other creatures, and the example of rabbits in Australia was one such example - rabbits do NOT belong in the ecosystem there, or they weren't part of it before some very arrogant Brits introduced them as a means of curbing a different pest. The result was disastrous! However, I've still not seen a good case presented by you that the targeted removal of specifically harmful viruses and bacteria would harm the food supply of anything that we want to keep around.

This post very much looks like it is made by a simple worshipper of the gawd of technology.

The modern epoc is now considered by most the Anthropocene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene

This is because humans are now significantly effecting the environment. As such it can clearly be seen that as we are to a greater or lesser extent controlling nature we might well be seen as separate from it. Much like A president has a vote but also has a separate position from the rest of the voting body.

basic math

1+X=Y
If this is the only equation you have and you do not know the value of X or Y then the value of Y cannot be solved until you know X.

Since we don't even know what lifeforms there are in an ecosystem it is impossible to predict the result of adding a new biological agent to it.

To advocate an action such as the removal of a species without doing the science, is the position of the most ignorant christard.

peacewithoutgod

There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.