- #1
WhatIf...?
- 18
- 0
Is it safe to say that most humans are parasitic in relation with their surroundings
In case you haven't noticed, there were a few responses requesting that WhatIf...?'s opinion be stated.raolduke said:I believe that human beings are parasites.. You can't ask most of the people on here because they will "assume" your "trolling" and try to prove you wrong in someway without ever considering your opinion.
Why not mine? I say humans are not parasitic because they are just another part of the system.loseyourname said:There isn't a single post in this thread attempting to prove him wrong. To even try that, we'd first need to know what he means.
What "organism" do humans parasitize from? Earth is not an organism or a host.gixxer666 said:Parasite by definition :An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.
We as humans take, and offer nothing back to our host but to destroy it! No other animal, other than humans does such ravishing of earth. I don`t know of a word in the vocabulary better to describe how destructive humans are on its host,than parasite!
DaveC426913 said:What "organism" do humans parasitize from? Earth is not an organism or a host.
And even if it were, name another animal that can "live independently" of the Earth.
By the definition, humans are not parasitic. Not much wiggle room there.
Then you've begged the question. Which means, in your question, you've asked for the answer to be granted.Huckleberry said:The question I posed presumes that humans are parasites in much the same way that your statement presumes we are not.
DaveC426913 said:What you're doing is redefining the word parasite to suit your needs.
Don't.
Humans are invasive and ecologically destructive.
But, as I pointed out, we are neither the first nor the best, at this. There are species that make our destruction of the Earth look puny by comparison. You might think I'm hyperbolizing. I'm not.
Thought you'd never ask...Huckleberry said:I don't doubt that there are species that are more destructive than humans, though just pure curiosity compels me to ask which ones you have in mind.
It isn't about superficial preference. Destruction of an environment means that the change done to the environment by the actions of a lifeform make the environment less suitable for sustaining life for that lifeform. It's a measurable quantity. It's only subjective in that it requires a point of reference in relation to a subject.Phrak said:Talk about "distruction of the environment" and similar statements are purely subjective. It means "I don't like how the environment --another subjective thing-- is changing from one configuration to another.
The obsurdity is that success is characterized as failure.
...not to mention the rest of living organisms on Earth. We are not just affecting ourseelves.Huckleberry said:If you want to be completely objective I guess you could claim that the environment is never destroyed, just changed from one state to another. However, that does nothing for our survival...
WhatIf...? said:What i ment by it is that most humans go to a place and leach of all the recources they can find and when they are all gone they go to a new place and restart the process leaving the area where they leached off to rot and die