Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Cells, Microbes & Viruses => Topic started by: tony6789 on 03/02/2006 14:18:37
-
In your opinion what is the worst virus
- Big T
-
All virus are evil.
Ebola, Poliomyelitis, HIV...etc all pretty evil.
Tom
-
Computer viruses because there's no excuse for their existence other than malicious intent.
Chris
"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
- Groucho Marx
-
YES I AGREE, IVE NEVER HAD A MALICIOUS INTENT, BUT WE DID HAVE A SCORPION ONCE, (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff238%2Frayhinton56%2F23_11_56.gif&hash=2f1014804e85c746c61c9ef8e6c89269)
RE-HAB IS FOR QUITTERS.
-
I have a trojan prety bad it let a hacker in a disaster so don't open any thing in that name
- Big T
-
I agree all viruses are bad
-
you know it
- Big T
-
But I never really considered computer viruses as true viruses
-
I always considered viruses as being inside of you
-
no as a matter of fact they are not true virusus. They are thought by many people to be a true virus but they are not. A computer virus is simply a counter piece of technology that acts against your computer. i can't explaon it can anyone help me
- Big T
-
The notion of computer 'viruses' was named by analogy with the action of biological viruses, not because they actually are biological viruses.
The term has become somewhat overused of late, with the notion of computer viruses now being applied to all sorts of malware which in the past such as would have been regarded as worms (i.e. because they self replicate, rather than replicate inside another piece of software).
The notion of a computer virus originally just referred to a piece of code that attached itself to a legitimate program in a way analogous to the way a virus hijacks an ordinary living cell, and it was not meant as a term applicable to self replicating software.
George.
-
THANKS GUYS{if you are guys}
-
Ben you better watch yr self
- Big T
-
people that send malicious code(viruses)should be treated to a nice course of anti-biotic baseball bat,that should cure them.
-
quote:
Originally posted by tony6789
In your opinion what is the worst virus
- Big T
[:)]
Virus / Technics. Terms?
Biological virus.
Is it good or bar or neutral living thing it's own life-purposes?
- Why biological virus want to live and made "childs" more viruses?
Data-"virus". (or worms etc.)
Computer program-code is not basically virus. It is part of programmed technical system. Computer network (like internet) is quite big and fast technical system to made help us (humans) to conversation each other. I think that terminology is wrong if we use word virus at technical things. Technical thing is not biological living exist.
But question was virus, biological virus?
- Do we know what is "mind" in one virus?
- Why biological virus exist?
- Is it individual being thing which have some kind "brain-function" to expand viruspopulation? If not, then, how it can live?
- Do we know what one virus want? How virus eat? etc.
I mean what is one virus basic living needs?
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by heikki
Data-"virus". (or worms etc.)
Computer program-code is not basically virus. It is part of programmed technical system. Computer network (like internet) is quite big and fast technical system to made help us (humans) to conversation each other. I think that terminology is wrong if we use word virus at technical things. Technical thing is not biological living exist.
What is right and wrong in terminology changes over time.
The term virus originally meant a venomous substance, so all of the modern meanings are in one way or another historically wrong, but are valid in contemporary language.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=virus&searchmode=none
quote:
1392, "venomous substance," from L. virus "poison, sap of plants, slimy liquid," probably from PIE base *weis- "to melt away, to flow," used of foul or malodorous fluids (cf. Skt. visam "poison," visah "poisonous;" Avestan vish- "poison;" L. viscum "sticky substance, birdlime;" Gk. ios "poison," ixos "mistletoe, birdlime; O.C.S. višnja "cherry;" O.Ir. fi "poison;" Welsh gwy "fluid, water," gwyar "blood").
quote:
Originally posted by heikki
Biological virus.
Is it good or bar or neutral living thing it's own life-purposes?
Why biological virus want to live and made "childs" more viruses?
The term want is an anthropomorphism. Things behave in the way they do because they are successful in doing so, not because they choose to do so.
A virus does what it does because it is successful at doing it. Once it stops being successful, it will stop doing it.
quote:
But question was virus, biological virus?
- Do we know what is "mind" in one virus?
- Why biological virus exist?
- Is it individual being thing which have some kind "brain-function" to expand viruspopulation? If not, then, how it can live?
- Do we know what one virus want? How virus eat? etc.
I mean what is one virus basic living needs?
The need of a virus is the same as the need of any living organism, to successfully reproduce itself, so that where you have one virus today, you will have many more tomorrow.
There is the caveat that some would argue that a virus does not actually reproduce itself, because it hijacks the reproductive processes of a cellular organism, but it nonetheless achieves the end result of creating a reproduction of itself.
Clearly, a virus does not have a brain, in any conventional sense of the word; on the other hand, one could argue that all DNA (and RNA) contain information, and thus viruses must be capable in one way or another of processing information (but no more or less so than a pocket calculator).
To ask how does a virus eat is like asking how does your liver eat – you liver does not eat, but your entire body eats, and feeds the liver what it needs. In the same way, a virus does not eat, but it invades a cellular organism, and allows the cell to provide it with whatever it needs. Since a virus is very simple, its needs are very simple – it is little more that the information it contains, and so all the cell needs to provide is enough to create the DNA or RNA to contain the information, and a minimal protective coat to protect that information.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
Clearly, a virus does not have a brain, in any conventional sense of the word; on the other hand, one could argue that all DNA (and RNA) contain information, and thus viruses must be capable in one way or another of processing information
George
[:)]
hmm? Quite good scientific conversation. If we go in the one cell, pseudonym another-someone? To new world.
You wrote;
DNA-RNA contain information and virus capable process this information?
Of cource capable virus itself to do it because it is living thing.
(Calculator is programmed by human and is technical thing, not living thing.)
How?
How this you called "information" is packet physical form?
(hmm. Not bukee,,[^])
What is this "information"? Nature round of virus, living-needs, etc?
Also other question.
Do we 100% scientifical know that dna-rna is the basic-place in cell where all "brain"-function is controlled?
(Is dna-rna that cpu?)
If it is cpu, what is that living-process system information to programmed this cpu;s? How this program-code is stored in cell, in dna-rna?
Are we 100% sure that dna-rna dont have in some smaller part "brain" in the cell?
What is construction of one dna-rna part when we draw it with atomic-theory?
Suppose our seeing-system at our body, mind-brain-eyes, to capable see we need everyone. We dont see nothing if some of these is missing. Of cource we need hearth, blood-system, nerve-system, etc also and world round of to se something what exist.
One cell on group of cells like virus need something else that dna-rna to being cell or group of cells?
But one biological cell? What is the process how it work?
Sometimes i think my brains. My brains is cell-group. If one cell living-function is controlled 100% of dna-rna order, how brain-cell can record example this text that i memory this tomorrow when i walk.
It text keeped (memoryplace, track,) some how in the one dna-rna or other parts of cell?
I have start to thinking that in one cell there is much more things what we cannot yet see or notice or we dont have observate yet?
I dont know how exact views in the one cell can see with microscope so i cannot says is inside on cell any yet unknown parts which operation is unknown?
Problem is perhaps also that one cell probably need other cells to live cell-group, individual thing, so then there is also important question also.
How this group of cells, like our brains, understand to work? I think that dna-rna is partly like fingerprint and in the cell there is much more which take effect to control the cell-operations.
How (physically) brain-cell store information?
Pictures, words, feelings, songs, etc.
But, main question was virus?
- Maybe virus has "brains" but only one-cell brains?
Anyriver, how one cell work, it is scientific and interesting nature thing. How group of cells, like one human work, it is also interesting nature thing, but partly different scale. How we work together to make better world? It is common future question.
[:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by heikki
[:)]
hmm? Quite good scientific conversation. If we go in the one cell, pseudonym another-someone? To new world.
I suspect that what you have written might well have made more sense in the original Finnish [:)], but I will try and answer what I think you have asked, but you will have to excuse me if I have misunderstood something of your question.
quote:
You wrote;
DNA-RNA contain information and virus capable process this information?
Of cource capable virus itself to do it because it is living thing.
(Calculator is programmed by human and is technical thing, not living thing.)
The distinction is only how it was created, not in what it does (in very broad terms).
Ofcourse, in more detailed terms, a pocket calculator was designed to handle the information processing needs of a human, whereas DNA/RNA was designed to contain information needed to build a replica of its own self. Pocket calculators do not replicate themselves, living organisms do replicate themselves. Viruses are actually on the boundary between what is living and what is not, and they only have a part of the coded needed for self replication, and they need to use code that is stored in true living organisms, alongside their own code, to perform the self-replication.
quote:
How?
How this you called "information" is packet physical form?
(hmm. Not bukee,,[^])
What is this "information"? Nature round of virus, living-needs, etc?
The information is like the architects drawings of how to create another organism similar to itself. The DNA/RNA contains information about the design of all the proteins that need to be manufactured by the cell in order to be able to survive and to reproduce.
quote:
Also other question.
Do we 100% scientifical know that dna-rna is the basic-place in cell where all "brain"-function is controlled?
No.
In fact, I think there is now a significant body of evidence that some information is inherited by processes other than the DNA, but it is generally assumed that this is only a very small amount of the information that is inherited by means other than the DNA (or RNA for some viruses).
quote:
(Is dna-rna that cpu?)
If it is cpu, what is that living-process system information to programmed this cpu;s? How this program-code is stored in cell, in dna-rna?
Not really the CPU, more the BIOS, or read only memory. The various enzymes in the cell probably can be regarded more as the CPU of the cell, reading the instructions stored in the DNA, and acting on them. Not sure exactly how closely this analogy will work, since I doubt that the living cell can really be thought of in terms of a von Neumann architecture machine.
The purpose of a CPU in a computer is not actually to store information, but to process information that is stored elsewhere. I said that the DNA was a store of information, and thus this would not equate to the role of the CPU in a computer.
I suppose, if we want to ask about the information processing capabilities of a living cell, the more interesting question (and one I don't have an answer to) is where the working storage (the read/write memory) of a cell is situated. The problem is really, that a living cell does not necessarily delineate the various computational tasks in the same was as a classical von Neumann architecture computer might, but that does not mean that the tasks are not undertaken.
quote:
What is construction of one dna-rna part when we draw it with atomic-theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA
quote:
Contrary to a common misconception, the DNA is not a single molecule, but rather a pair of molecules joined by hydrogen bonds: it is organized as two complementary strands, head-to-toe, with the hydrogen bonds between them. Each strand of DNA is a chain of chemical "building blocks", called nucleotides, of which there are four types: adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). In some organisms, most notably the PBS1 phage, Uracil (U) replaces T in the organism's DNA.[1] These allowable base components of nucleic acids can be polymerized in any order giving the molecules a high degree of uniqueness.
The DNA contains the genetic information that is inherited by the offspring of an organism; this information is determined by the sequence of base pairs along its length.
quote:
Originally posted by heikki
But one biological cell? What is the process how it work?
Sometimes i think my brains. My brains is cell-group. If one cell living-function is controlled 100% of dna-rna order, how brain-cell can record example this text that i memory this tomorrow when i walk.
No, DNA does not control 100% of how a cell behaves. The DNA controls how a cell is built, the fully constructed cell then has to interact with its environment. The DNA still continues to provide the basis of the behaviour of the cell, but it does so by determining how the cell interacts with its environment, not by providing the interaction itself. As I said, the DNA is the blueprint, it is not the entirety of the function of a cell.
quote:
I dont know how exact views in the one cell can see with microscope so i cannot says is inside on cell any yet unknown parts which operation is unknown?
Problem is perhaps also that one cell probably need other cells to live cell-group, individual thing, so then there is also important question also.
How this group of cells, like our brains, understand to work? I think that dna-rna is partly like fingerprint and in the cell there is much more which take effect to control the cell-operations.
OK, to got back to the computer analogy, a computer is a collection of transistors; no single transistor is aware of the total functioning of a computer, it only knows how to do its own job, but the collection of all the transistors together can perform tasks that are unimaginable to any single transistor.
George
-
[:)]
Hei, and thanks a_s. Long answer. I talk more it maybe next week. No is so nice summer-days in Finland at must stay out to joy spring-time life sunshining.
[:)]
-
quote:
No, DNA does not control 100% of how a cell behaves. The DNA controls how a cell is built, the fully constructed cell then has to interact with its environment.
OK, to got back to the computer analogy, a computer is a collection of transistors; no single transistor is aware of the total functioning of a computer, it only knows how to do its own job, but the collection of all the transistors together can perform tasks that are unimaginable to any single transistor.
[:)]
Hello, a_s ,again. Take some time, but anypath.
--------------------------
1.
You wrote that dna controls how cell is build.
I innovate new questions this life-biology area.
How dna control this building operation?
How dna know what must done and what is time-schedule of this cell-building process?
How dna know and can own that kind of skills to build itself to dna so that it has skills and information to know how build one cell?
That cell where it is born, grown, and living at it's living time?
What kind of stuff dna eat or drink to growth at one dna?
-----
2.
My basic education and work area is electrician, (over 20years) so, this second one is familiary for me. I know that transistos is not living thing. It is made by rock-material handling process. And it need small matter-particle to work. Without electric transistor dont do anything.
-----
These 1 and 2 are totally different matter-behave area, but, can use when we try to understand what separate, technics machines and nature biological life.
-----------------------
Tony open this conversation question, what is the worst virus?
Technical machines, like computer, term-"virus" means, program code which is done by human. Better to scientist accurate is to say, computer programmed error code, not virus. Hmm. Computer code, human programmed error code, huprog-code. Term, huprog-code, maybe new term?
Virus is so common term that it is not good thing, it give wrong information to us. But, anypath, it is not my problem.
Biological cell, virus? Hmm.
What is virus needs?
Why and how, how do know?, one virus want to reproduce itself?
How virus eat?
I dont know.
But, i have wrote all what i have now mind of this issue, so, thanks for conversation, and lovely life a_s and others also.
br. Heikki.
[:)]
-
wow long and...interesting post...
- Big T
-
Sorry it has taken a little time to get back to this. Unfortunately, for most of the questions, I'm afraid I will simply have to say I don't know, and it would take someone better versed in biochemistry than I to give you any sort of sensible answer. I will try and make some guesses, and hope that someone else will correct me where I go wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by heikki
How dna control this building operation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Sequence_role
quote:
Within a gene, the sequence of nucleotides along a DNA strand defines a messenger RNA sequence which then defines a protein, that an organism is liable to manufacture or "express" at one or several points in its life using the information of the sequence. The relationship between the nucleotide sequence and the amino-acid sequence of the protein is determined by simple cellular rules of translation, known collectively as the genetic code. The genetic code consists of three-letter 'words' (termed a codon) formed from a sequence of three nucleotides (e.g. ACT, CAG, TTT). These codons can then be translated with messenger RNA and then transfer RNA, with a codon corresponding to a particular amino acid. There are 64 possible codons (4 bases in 3 places 43) that encode 20 amino acids. Most amino acids, therefore, have more than one possible codon. There are also three 'stop' or 'nonsense' codons signifying the end of the coding region, namely the UAA, UGA and UAG codons.
In many species, only a small fraction of the total sequence of the genome appears to encode protein. For example, only about 1.5% of the human genome consists of protein-coding exons. The function of the rest is a matter of speculation. It is known that certain nucleotide sequences specify affinity for DNA binding proteins, which play a wide variety of vital roles, in particular through control of replication and transcription. These sequences are frequently called regulatory sequences, and researchers assume that so far they have identified only a tiny fraction of the total that exist. "Junk DNA" represents sequences that do not yet appear to contain genes or to have a function. The reasons for the presence of so much non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes and the extraordinary differences in genome size ("C-value") among species represent a long-standing puzzle in DNA research known as the "C-value enigma".
Some DNA sequences play structural roles in chromosomes. Telomeres and centromeres typically contain few (if any) protein-coding genes, but are important for the function and stability of chromosomes. Some genes code for "RNA genes" (see tRNA and rRNA). Some RNA genes code for transcripts that function as regulatory RNAs (see siRNA) that influence the function of other RNA molecules. The intron-exon structure of some genes (such as immunoglobin and protocadeherin genes) is important for allowing alternative splicing of pre-mRNA which allows several different proteins to be made from the same gene. Some non-coding DNA represents pseudogenes that can be used as raw material for the creation of new genes with new functions. Some non-coding DNA provided hot-spots for duplication of short DNA regions; such sequence duplication has been the major form of genetic change in the human lineage (see evidence from the Chimpanzee Genome Project). Exons interspersed with introns allows for "exon shuffling" and the creation of modified genes that might have new adaptive functions. Large amounts of non-coding DNA is probably adaptive in that it provides chromosomal regions where recombination between homologous portions of chromosomes can take place without disrupting the function of genes. Some biologists such as Stuart Kauffman have speculated that non-coding DNA may modify the rate of evolution of a species.
quote:
How dna know what must done and what is time-schedule of this cell-building process?
The DNA can respond to external events (I don't know the details of how it is supposed to do this).
So, what I can imagine might happen is that one cell produces a messenger of some kind, this messenger then leaves the cell, and diffuses through the medium outside the cell, enters another cell, and triggers something in the DNA of the other cell to switch in a particular process. Depending upon how slowly the messenger diffuses through the medium will determine how long it will take for one cell to cause a change in another cell. If that other cell then sends out a messenger that is read by the first cell, then you can see the beginning of a crude conversation going on, and depending how slowly this conversation takes place, it alter the time-scale upon which the two cells (and the other cells in the vicinity) will change their behaviour.
Even within a single cell, there will be processes that take a given length of time (rather like a chemical clock), and it may well be that when the chemical clock completes its process, it triggers a gene in the DNA to switch on or switch off.
In other cases, as the body grows, and cells move about, they become exposed to different messenger chemicals. For instance, the cells that will grow into your hand and arms all start as just a small clump of cells near your body. While they are close to the body, they might receive messenger chemicals from the cells in the body that tell them just to grow out as an arm. As they get further from the body, they are too far away to receive this messenger, and so they start to grow into hands because they know they cannot any longer receive the messages that say they should only be an arm and not a hand.
As I say, I am not really qualified to properly answer these questions, but these are the kind of guesses I would make. Maybe someone better qualified might be able to give a better answer.
quote:
How dna know and can own that kind of skills to build itself to dna so that it has skills and information to know how build one cell?
That cell where it is born, grown, and living at it's living time?
I am not sure the DNA has the skill to do anything.
In my earlier post, I said the DNA was more like a BIOS, and the machinery of the cell itself was more like the CPU.
When the first human cell is conceived, when the sperm enters an unfertilised egg, as far as I am aware, it inherits all the machinery of a fully cell from the egg, and all the new DNA does is in effect to reprogram the BIOS of the cell.
Having inherited the processing capabilities of the egg cell, and with the reprogrammed DNA, the cell is now instructed to use the processing capabilities it has to build the type of cell that the new DNA now tells it to build.
In some ways, it might be said that the sperm actually behaves like a super virus, except it is a virus that the egg actually needs, since the egg cell is an incomplete cell without the addition of the DNA from the sperm cell.
Again, I await anyone better qualified to tell me how far I have erred.
quote:
What kind of stuff dna eat or drink to growth at one dna?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Molecular_structure
quote:
Each vine-like molecule is a strand of DNA: a chemically linked chain of nucleotides, each of which consists of a sugar (deoxyribose), a phosphate and one of five kinds of nucleobases ("bases"). Because DNA strands are composed of these nucleotide subunits, they are polymers.
The diversity of the bases means that there are five kinds of nucleotides, which are commonly referred to by the identity of their bases. These are adenine (A), thymine (T), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). U is rarely found in DNA except as a result of chemical degradation of C, but in some viruses, notably PBS1 phage DNA, U completely replaces the usual T in its DNA. Similarly, RNA usually contains U in place of T, but in certain RNAs such as transfer RNA, T is always found in some positions. Thus, the only true difference between DNA and RNA is the sugar, 2-deoxyribose in DNA and ribose in RNA.
Clearly, the cells machinery must be able to extract the appropriate phosphates, sugars, and nucleotides, to be able to build copies of the DNA; but exactly where it gets these raw materials from is something I do not know – again, maybe someone else can answer that question.
quote:
-----
2.
My basic education and work area is electrician, (over 20years) so, this second one is familiary for me. I know that transistos is not living thing. It is made by rock-material handling process. And it need small matter-particle to work. Without electric transistor dont do anything.
-----
These 1 and 2 are totally different matter-behave area, but, can use when we try to understand what separate, technics machines and nature biological life.
-----------------------
My own profession is computer programming, and I did some electronics at university, so I have some understanding (albeit, from a very long time ago) of that too.
Clearly, in detail, an electronic computer and a living cell are very different things; but that is not to say that strong analogies cannot be made in the way they function, in the way that any highly complex system might function.
They are strictly analogies, and not precise equivalents, nonetheless those analogies can often be used to extend our understanding of both. In the same way that engineers will often learn from living organisms how to build better machines, so too biologists can use an understanding of engineered systems to give an insight into how nature works. Both often share similar underlying principles, even if they are manifest in different ways because the raw materials used are different.
quote:
Tony open this conversation question, what is the worst virus?
Technical machines, like computer, term-"virus" means, program code which is done by human. Better to scientist accurate is to say, computer programmed error code, not virus. Hmm. Computer code, human programmed error code, huprog-code. Term, huprog-code, maybe new term?
Virus is so common term that it is not good thing, it give wrong information to us. But, anypath, it is not my problem.
Can't see it makes any difference really. The context in which the word is used in each case leaves the meaning unambiguous, so if people are comfortable using the same word for each of the two concepts, then why not use it?
quote:
Biological cell, virus? Hmm.
What is virus needs?
Why and how, how do know?, one virus want to reproduce itself?
A virus is just a chuck of DNA (or sometimes RNA, which can be translated back to DNA), with very little actual machinery attached.
As I said above, all the DNA is is a bit of information, like the BIOS in a computer. It still needs the machinery of a cell (like a BIOS needs a CPU to run on) in order to do any real work. For this, the DNA of the virus needs to load itself into a real cell so that it can use the machinery of that cell to actually execute its code.
quote:
How virus eat?
As I said above, the virus is mostly DNA.RNA, with a very little bit of machinery (just enough machinery to allow it to load itself into a cell). As such, it needs to be fed exactly the same as the DNA of the cell itself, so when the virus infects the cell, it has to persuade the machinery of the cell to feed it the same way that the machinery of the cell would feed its own DNA – it is like a cuckoo that persuades another bird that it really is one of its own chicks.
George
-
quote:
Originally posted by nilmot
All virus are evil.
Ebola, Poliomyelitis, HIV...etc all pretty evil.
Tom
I can't see how something like a virus just trying to survive can be said to be evil. We all in fact owe are existences to them. Some of bacterial ancestors would kill us dead if we came in contact with them now. All the same they are life. I not saying we should not protect ourselves from them but labelling them this way is not helpful. They exist in there own universe unaware of us as we are of them most of the time. They are also likely to out-survive us too. In the bigger scheme to things I think we humans are far more destructive to the environment that we share with them. So how would you label us?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.activity4life.com%2Fphoto%2Fogen.gif&hash=6253299cc3fed923a4509481e36f5293)
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Hadrian
I can't see how something like a virus just trying to survive can be said to be evil. We all in fact owe are existences to them. Some of bacterial ancestors would kill us dead if we came in contact with them now. All the same they are life. I not saying we should not protect ourselves from them but labelling them this way is not helpful. They exist in there own universe unaware of us as we are of them most of the time. They are also likely to out-survive us too. In the bigger scheme to things I think we humans are far more destructive to the environment that we share with them. So how would you label us?
I agree that in nature nothing can be considered good or bad, let alone evil, it is just nature.
By the same token, the notion of destructive has no meaning. You might say that some things have a greater influence on the global environment (such as the photosynthesis of plants and algae, that all derived from the the photosynthesis of the first cyanobacteria), while other things may have much less influence on the environment; but what one judges as a destructive influence and what one judges a constructive influence is an arbitrary distinction, and one that nature itself cannot make.
As for whether viruses will outlive us – it rather depends upon the virus.
Clearly, the smallpox virus will not outlive us.
In no case will a virus that is specialised for one particular host species outlive that host species, so that any virus that is specialised for humans (e.g. polio, HIV, etc.) cannot outlive the death of the human species. More indiscriminate viruses, such as the flu virus, that can kind many different hosts, will almost certainly outlive us – with the caveat that because of the fast mutation rate of most viruses (some faster than others), the form that will outlive us will not be the same as the form that exists today.
George
-
Dearest George.
A few times now I have seen you post in a similar way. The idea that destruction is part of creation is valid. Just thinking about a neutron star is all you have to do. So I would like to state my belief that human destruction is different. We have a choice to be in this world as one with it or resist it. We can live in perfect harmony with nature like gardeners of the world. We can see to it that all we use is replaced. But we have become dazzled by our technology and fooled in to thinking that somehow we have evolved. If we were to lose every processor, every satellite and all our gadgets too we soon find out that we are no smarted then we ever were. We may have gained in some ways but we have lost so much to do it. Most people in our society would be totally unable to survive on there own wits. Tasks like finding food and shelter would be impossible for millions. We can push a button and destroy a city but we are perhaps more vulnerable now then any time in modern history. As a child I remember being taught that the Roman Empire fell because they became soft and unwilling the fight. I now think the one factor was that small farmers north of Rome were bought or forced out of there land over time. When this happened Rome lost a resource of passionate men who would fight not of Rome but for their land. Human destruction is all about how we destroy are place on this planet at our peril. It is about profit over people. It is about losing our connection with the land with nature, with ourselves.
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Hadrian
So I would like to state my belief that human destruction is different. We have a choice to be in this world as one with it or resist it. We can live in perfect harmony with nature like gardeners of the world. We can see to it that all we use is replaced.
I (not surprisingly) totally disagree at every level.
We have no choices, and we cannot either live in harmony with, nor resist, nature. We are a part of nature, we cannot escape it, and we can neither choose to resits it, not choose in any way our relationship to it. All we can do, however much it may appear to us otherwise, is abide by the rules nature gives us. The rules nature provides us are not as pretty and comforting as the idealised images of nature might suggest, but they are the only rules we have.
The idea of the gardener is interesting, because a garden is in fact a totally artificial environment (insofar as one can make a distinction between artificial and natural). A gardener chooses which plants he want in his garden, and which he destroys. A gardener decides how to landscape his garden. In that very narrow domain, the gardener may use the facilities that nature provides, but he very much tries to take control of the environment, and use those rules to make his own, very artificial, creation.
quote:
But we have become dazzled by our technology and fooled in to thinking that somehow we have evolved.
I don't think the technology has very much to do with it. We have always thought of ourselves as special – it is a part of the human psyche, long before any modern technology came about. Just look at the biblical (or any other religious) notions of humanity, and they all somehow believe that humans are separate, and different, from the rest of nature.
Even your own comment above, about the notion that humans, alone amongst all of nature, somehow have choices that are denied to other species in nature; clearly indicates that you too believe that humans are somehow special, that they are above other species. I think this is a false belief, although it is an understandable one.
quote:
If we were to lose every processor, every satellite and all our gadgets too we soon find out that we are no smarted then we ever were.
I would in no way dispute this – I think far too much is made of intelligence. Intelligence is a useful tool, but it does not of itself make us innately different to anything else, it merely provides us with a particular type of tool that we have found particularly useful.
quote:
We may have gained in some ways but we have lost so much to do it. Most people in our society would be totally unable to survive on there own wits. Tasks like finding food and shelter would be impossible for millions.
I would not argue with this – it has always been my belief, that in the end, whatever you do, you do not (in the broad scheme of things) either win or lose, you just hold different positions; positions that while they may differ, are not better or worse than the position you had before, or the one you will hold later.
quote:
As a child I remember being taught that the Roman Empire fell because they became soft and unwilling the fight. I now think the one factor was that small farmers north of Rome were bought or forced out of there land over time. When this happened Rome lost a resource of passionate men who would fight not of Rome but for their land.
All empires fall – the British Empire also fell.
I think that neither of the arguments you mention are realistic.
Yes, as empires mature, the people get soft. What actually happens is that people, as they build on the benefits of empire, and become entrenched in their position, and find that they have too much to lose in embracing change, so they are unable to accept change. We also see this in Western industrial economies, that increasingly hold entrenched positions, and are increasingly unable to change the structures within they work. This is not just about employers, or property owners, trying to hold on to what they have; it is also about trade unions resisting change; about the electorate being reluctant to change; about the political hierarchy finding it difficult to accept or implement change.
This is not something that is peculiarly human; any animal that is successful at doing something, becomes ever more specialised in doing that one thing, and finds it ever more difficult to adapt to the inevitable changes in the environment around it.
At the same time, as the empire is ever more entrenched in its present position; its enemies are constantly learning and adapting. Because its enemies have little to lose, they find it easier to adapt and innovate, until they get to the point where their innovation can overcome the inertia of the empire itself.
This is true whether one talks of political/military empires, or of economic empires.
The case of the Roman empire has its own features, not least our own historic distortions on the matter.
Firstly, the Roman empire had massive trade throughout it dominion, and imported enormous amounts of food from across Europe and North Africa. In fact, Libya (which, at the time, referred to the totality of North Africa) was considered the grain basket of the Roman empire.
The other factor is a clear distortion about the notion of the collapse of the Roman empire itself. Because of the schism between the Eastern and Western churches, the Western Church has always used the term 'Roman empire' to refer to the western Roman empire. In fact, long before the collapse of the western Roman empire, the empire had moved its capital to Constantinople, and hence the loss of the city of Rome did not actually constitute the loss of empire; although there is no doubt that it was a major blow to the empire. The Roman empire only truly fell in 1453, when the Ottomans overran Constantinople – just 39 years before Columbus discovered America, which is not mere coincidence.
quote:
Human destruction is all about how we destroy are place on this planet at our peril. It is about profit over people. It is about losing our connection with the land with nature, with ourselves.
On the contrary, human destruction is also about human construction, it is about our attempts to adapt to the changing environment, and to construct for ourselves a niche (even a very big niche, that will support our big population) in which we can survive.
I am not saying that we do not sometimes (even often) get it wrong, but the only way you never make mistakes is by not trying.
George
-
Bless you George
What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.