Are humans inherently parasitic in relation to their surroundings?

[WhatIf...?]

Is it safe to say that most humans are parasitic in relation with their surroundings

 

[WhatIf...?]

does anyone think this is true and why??

 

[DaveC426913]

Why don't you share your thoughts?

 

[ranger]

I'm just curious as to why WhatIf...? would ask such a question and what are his thoughts.

 

[loseyourname]

That entirely depends upon what you mean by "parasite." It has a very specific definition in biology, that of a symbiote that derives something it needs to live from its host but provides no benefit in return and in fact is detrimental to its host's survival. Aside from conjoined twins and fetuses, no humans are symbiotes. One can only assume that isn't what you meant, in which case you should state what it is you do mean.

 

[Mk]

Cannot humans be thought of as part a larger system and therefore cannot be thought of as parasites just because they use and absorb parts of the world around them? As in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. It isn't as if they only take, and do not release energy to the rest of the universe.

 

[raolduke]

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.

We aren't parasitic organisms by any means but I understand what you are saying.

 

[ranger]

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.

In case you haven't noticed, there were a few responses requesting that WhatIf...?'s opinion be stated.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[WhatIf...?]

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

 

[loseyourname]

Human industry for the last few hundred years has done a lot of that, but humans generally throughout history have tried to live in a way that sustained the land they lived off of. We see sort of an inverse curve as we move from foraging through agriculture to industry of less and less sustainable resource usage.

 

[Mk]

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.

Why not mine? I say humans are not parasitic because they are just another part of the system.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, you phrased your post as a question, which I don't generally take to be a form of proof.

 

[WhatIf...?]

i would say that we are parasitic cause the Earth doesn't gain anything in having us hear we feed of of it and we leave their. Its true we care about it to some extent but even the people that do care about it they really don't make a difference. what's going to happen when we run out of fuel in the middle east well leave it their to die and go find another place. and if we don't find any then and only will we really seriously think about alternatives
only when the world is ending do we think about a solution.

 

[Thebluepillow]

i think whatif...? has a valid point but is really going far out on a limb there

 

[Thebluepillow]

what i m trying to say is that yeah it is true that we live off of the Earth and it doesn't gain anything from us but we aren't parasitic because then pretty much everything is parasitic in relation to something so technically being parasitic is human and natural.

 

[gixxer666]

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]

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!

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

All animals use the resources that are around them. It is simply that humans are a particularly invasive species due to their high degree of adaptability.

If you would like, I can give a number of examples of species that destroy the environment around them. I can name you species that have polluted the Earth so much it has virtually wiped out life on it and the Earth has never recovered. In the game of destroying the Earth, humans are rank amateurs.

Still so down on humans?

 

[Huckleberry]

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.

I don't think it matters that an animal live independently of the Earth to not be classified as a parasite. I mean, what parasite can live without its host? The question I posed presumes that humans are parasites in much the same way that your statement presumes we are not.

I would agree that 'Earth' is not viable as a host. I think what people sometimes mean when they say 'Earth' isn't any single organism, but the biodiversity of an entire planet as a single system of which we are but a part. So a claim that human beings are parasites is like saying that humanity is detrimental to biodiversity. I would guess this opinion would be more prevalent if one believed that this threat to biodiversity was detrimental to our own existence, essentially using humanity as the measuring stick for biological fitness. It could also refer to a more emotional response of how people benefit from the labor of others without reward of equal value to the effort, so we could be described as parasitic to ourselves.

Judging by the effects of human actions on biodiversity and human behaviour in general I would say that humanity is parasitic, though not specifically in a medical or biological sense. When resources are plentiful we take what is available with little to no regard for the effects that our actions will have on other life. When our effect on biodiversity or a limitation of resources threatens our own survival we act to remedy the situation to benefit our continued survival and future growth. Self-interest is the dark side of individual consciousness, particularly when it is amplified by group thinking.

Zombies are room temperature.

 

[DaveC426913]

The question I posed presumes that humans are parasites in much the same way that your statement presumes we are not.

Then you've begged the question. Which means, in your question, you've asked for the answer to be granted.

My statement does not presume humans are not parasites, my statement compares the definition of parasite with what humans do - and finds falsehood. Pretty hard to argue with that.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[Huckleberry]

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.

I'm using a connotive definition. That's true. But It isn't a definition that I created myself for my own convenience. That's not a fair judgement. I think it was the definition inferred by the OP. My point was that humans are invasive and ecologically destructive to the system that we depend on for life. I'm pretty sure the OP wasn't using a scientific definition so I don't think I'm wrong to introduce the idea of an answer based on the connotive definition, not that the OP will ever read this. As far as I can tell I'm answering the question as it was asked, and using a medical or biological definition of the word would cause miscommunication in any proffered explanation. Without explaining the definition scientifically one might leave the conversation with the impression that humans are not invasive and destructive, when that was not the meaning intended by stating that human beings are not parasites . Even if I am wrong in discerning the OP's intent, since the OP isn't here to clarify, I don't see how it causes harm to offer another point of view as long as I am clear in the definition that I'm using.

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. Still, because there are things that are more destructive than humans doesn't make humans less destructive than we are. What really grinds my gears is that humans often behave this way consciously.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm just saying there is another way to look at this, and it's more likely to answer the question as it was asked.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

Thought you'd never ask...

About 4 billion years ago, the Earth's atmo was a lovely life-giving concoction of methane. Cyanobacteria loved it so much that they proliferated and took over the world, but in doing so, they polluted it with their own waste product: oxygen. Oxygen is an extremely active and poisonous element, as it tends to bond with almost anything, burning and oxidizing everything it touches. The Earth's atmo became so polluted with poison that it wiped out most of Earth's life and changed the composition of the atmo forever. Earth has never recovered from that, even after 4 billion years, and its atmo is filled with poisonous oxygen to this very day. Cyanobacteria, the original Kings of Earth, now eke out a meager existence in places protected from oxygen.

 

[Huckleberry]

Yeah, I guess that's true. I hadn't considered that the environment was once very different than it is today and the cause of its change was due to living organisms polluting it with their waste. I still have a lot of hope for humanity finding a homeostatic relationship on this planet, so I agree with you that cyanobacteria are far more destructive than humans regardless of the tense used. Thanks for humoring me.

 

[Phrak]

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.

 

[Huckleberry]

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.

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.

Just as cyanobacteria destroyed its own environment, that change was beneficial for us. It wasn't at all beneficial to cyanobacteria. While it was a measurable boon to us, it is also a measurable bane to them. Likewise, we also alter our environment and the changes we make have effects on our survival and growth.

Terms for success and failure are also relative. Depending on the conditions we set for them we could either see indefinite survival or inevitable extinction. If success is measured as progress without regard to homeostasis then we will join cyanobacteria. If success is measured by progress within the boundaries of what we can maintain then we've got a chance for continued growth as a species. The absurdity exists in the short-sightedness of a species that has the capability to adapt its behaviour but chooses not to.

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. The effects of no regulations on emmissions, waste disposal, deforestation, farming and hunting are objective also. It seems we are forced to take a relative position if our survival is a priority.

 

[DaveC426913]

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...

...not to mention the rest of living organisms on Earth. We are not just affecting ourseelves.

 

[Ophiolite]

It seems clear that from a biological point of view we are not, by definition, parasites.

The argument against humanity's current destructive propensities is not strengthened by the inaccurate use of a scientific term. Rather it can deflect the argument towards semantics and away from substance.

Using the term parasite in a metaphorical sense, especially in a philosophy subforum, seems wholly appropriate, as long as we recognise the dangers pointed out in the prior paragraph.

 

[ZacharyFino]

i definitely believe that humans are parasitic because we exist as a species that is detrimental to most others on a large scale. a tick may take a few milliliters of blood from another, but we take the entire forest that they live in. we are steadily infecting and destroying the planet and from the looks of things, people don't want to give up their standard of living

 

[ZacharyFino]

i think that parasitism deals with the biological health of the host, and benefitting from their sources of food and habitat. if you think of it as harmful interaction between species, we are definitely harmful. the Earth is our host and so are the species that live here. if you want to play grammatical mathematics then yes, there are many ways to say humans arent parasitic, but we understand the definition of parasite more than a single paragraph can explain.

 

[DaveC426913]

There's really no question that we are harmful to Earth. I don't think any sane person can deny that.

And if the OP was not asking if we are literally parasites, then...

what is the point of this thread?

 

[Kronos5253]

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

That's more like a virus than a parasite.

See: "The Matrix".. Towards the end when Morpheus is handcuffed to the chair and the guy with the sunglasses is talking to him without his earpiece in.

 

[ZacharyFino]

agreed, much more like a virus (in that statement) unless linked to our interaction with other life forms, resources arent necessarily life-forms

 

[drankin]

Is being a metaphorical parasite the Earth being a figurative host a bad thing? If it is, is there a moral solution?

 

[ZacharyFino]

it is a morally bad thing because we hold values on life and consciousness. many life-forms capable of feeling emotions are negatively affected by us, and because us as humans at least pretend to include sympathy, importance of emotions, and empathy in our "moral code of standards", our parasitic actions towards Earth and the life on Earth are a bad thing. If you feel it is wrong to inflict pain on a conscious being for a reason other than survival, than our parasitic ways are most likely immoral in your belief.

 

[drankin]

If you feel it is wrong to inflict pain on a conscious being for a reason other than survival, than our parasitic ways are most likely immoral in your belief.

Can you expound on this? In general humans do not inflict pain on other "conscious" beings. What do you mean by parasitic ways of life?

 

[ZacharyFino]

as a species our actions affect "conscious" beings in numerous ways, with the major effects including pain. Deforestation, pollution in the air, exploitation of animals as a cash-"crop", wiping areas of habitat off the map to build a new mayfare or housing development, destruction of rainforests for cattle grazing land. as individuals we do not generally inflict pain but as a species our actions cause the pain of millions

 

[drankin]

as a species our actions affect "conscious" beings in numerous ways, with the major effects including pain. Deforestation, pollution in the air, exploitation of animals as a cash-"crop", wiping areas of habitat off the map to build a new mayfare or housing development, destruction of rainforests for cattle grazing land. as individuals we do not generally inflict pain but as a species our actions cause the pain of millions

Is this what you call parasitic? Is it not natural? Or do you consider mankinds actions unnatural? The fact is that we humans are simply animals of a particular species doing what an animal of a particular species naturally does. As shown in previous posts in this thread, technically our species is not parasitic. All species cause pain to other species in order to maintain their existence. To call this immoral is to call a predator immoral because it must kill to eat. From bacteria, insects, to mammals. They must dominate their niche to exist.

 

[junglebeast]

As loseyourname already pointed out, humans are certainly not parasites.

However, the word "parasitic" means "like a parasite," and this depends on your perspective / opinion. In English it is common practice to liken just about anything to anything else -- it's part of literary freedom.

 

[DaveC426913]

Both parasite and virus are straw men. Label humans one or the other and then attack them based on the metaphor. But the metaphor is not perfectly accurate, and it is loaded down with baggage. Why not just state your problem with the human race and attack that?

 

[Phrak]

How would a proper, non-parasitic human behave?

 

[ZacharyFino]

ITo call this immoral is to call a predator immoral because it must kill to eat.

human beings do not breed millions of cattle on grazing land cut from rainforests because those guys needed to survive, they did it purely for the money

 

[ZacharyFino]

Both parasite and virus are straw men. Label humans one or the other and then attack them based on the metaphor. But the metaphor is not perfectly accurate, and it is loaded down with baggage. Why not just state your problem with the human race and attack that?

Haha exactly!

 

[DaveC426913]

human beings do not breed millions of cattle on grazing land cut from rainforests because those guys needed to survive, they did it purely for the money

In a cooperative society, a farmer raises cows to sell to the carpenter to eat. The farmer can concenttrate on his cows because he's hired the carpenter to build his barn to keep his cows in.

Money does nothing but lubricate this process.

 

[DaveC426913]

Everything humans do is to ensure the success of themselves and/or their species - just like every other living thing on the face of the Earth.

The only crime humans commit is that they breed indiscriminately, blooming their population beyond the sustainability of their environment.

That's it.

 

[ZacharyFino]

agreed, humans have just advanced with too large a gap above other species.

 

[drankin]

agreed, humans have just advanced with too large a gap above other species.

I disagree. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from philosophically as well as practically. In order to feed our species, we need to create farmlands. Depending on where humans are geographically, this may be converting rainforests, deserts, and what have you to create them. Yes, it's about money because we need money to buy food. We need money for education, shelter, food, water, etc.

Other than an obvious dislike for your own species, I don't see a point philosophically or otherwise for your posts.

 

[Tibarn]

as a species our actions affect "conscious" beings in numerous ways, with the major effects including pain. Deforestation, pollution in the air, exploitation of animals as a cash-"crop", wiping areas of habitat off the map to build a new mayfare or housing development, destruction of rainforests for cattle grazing land. as individuals we do not generally inflict pain but as a species our actions cause the pain of millions

For any organism to survive to maturity means the death of countless others. Even if it's a plant that doesn't outright eat its neighbors, there's still competition for resources--good soil, good lighting, water, etc. "Harmony" is rather a matter of compulsion. Place any species in a place without natural predators and watch it run amok and screw the local ecosystem. Kill all the wolves, and the deer will multiply till they've eaten everything in sight, then die of starvation because there's nothing left to eat. If we had natural enemies, say a race of giants, we wouldn't be causing half the environmental problems we are now.

Come to think of it, humans are probably the only species that are actively trying to limit themselves before they exhaust their resources and die slowly and painfully. Oh, and by the way, ants have been known to wage war, enslave their enemies, raise other animals as livestock, and grow their own food. Our habits aren't as unique as we may think.

 

[tchitt]

I disagree. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from philosophically as well as practically. In order to feed our species, we need to create farmlands. Depending on where humans are geographically, this may be converting rainforests, deserts, and what have you to create them. Yes, it's about money because we need money to buy food. We need money for education, shelter, food, water, etc.

Other than an obvious dislike for your own species, I don't see a point philosophically or otherwise for your posts.

You don't agree that humanity, just by living the way we know how, is wreaking havoc on the planet's ecosystem? Since the discovery of fire humans have been clearing forests and extincting other species for things like education, shelter, food, water, etc. I think what the originally poster is saying is that parasites do the same thing. They NEED what they NEED to survive even if it means killing the "host".

I don't agree that the parasite analogy is the best one, though... because the planet is not an organism or a host. It's an ecosystem. I certainly don't dislike MY own species but the gap between homo sapiens and the rest of the species on this Earth is obviously there. Since 1900 the Earth's human population has risen from 1,000,000,000 to around 7,000,000,000.

Anyway, like I said I don't really believe that we're "parasites" either but you can draw a lot of parallels and I don't understand why you can't comprehend dude's point.