Humans are a virus.

Spoiler:

Discuss.

Obviously. Humanity is the ultimate adaptive survivor and consumer. As an example, people in Star Trek talk about the Borg swarming across worlds and incorporating them as though they were evil and all-powerful, but humans do the same thing even faster and more effectively. We just make them happy about it sometimes.

Humanity truly is the ultimate evil.

I would agree that Smith's analogy of humanity to a Virus is correct, and I wouldn't argue against it being "evil". ( Whatever that word means ).

However, every living creature takes this path of consumption and migration. It certainly isn't unique to just Viruses and Humans. I mean, every creature that "migrates" in any shape or form, is doing such because of its consumption.

The only difference is the scale at which humans do it. The issue here is not "humanity" in its purest form, but the new modern concept of "humanity", i.e. human rights. We're outlawing evolutionary selection! It has become so bad, that the weakest of humans who should die; starting from (1) those who are born with sever metal or physical handicaps, to (2) those prone to early childhood genetic inflictions, to (3) the old who can no longer contribute; are in fact using up the MOST resources ( through the "medical business", not the "medical field") in attempt to keep these people alive. Plus, in the cases of (1) & (2), it's in hopes that some day they are able to breed and thereby infect the population even more.
It is the "intellectual humanity" NOT the "instinctive humanity" that is fucking up the world.

[ And yes, I would consider the chance to bear offspring a privilege, not a "right". In the rest of the animal kingdom, it is something you earn, and it should be the same for humans. ]

Just to argue with Zync for fun - Evolution has apparently also selected the qualities of compassion and kindness, and has made it widespread, or at least widespread enough to become a part of customs and cultures so that it becomes the societal norm, so evolution has chosen the weak to survive . We're not outlawing evolutionary selection at all. Evolution is about fitness, and all we're doing is making it so that the weak are "fit to survive" because of ethical and moral reasons that have also been developed as a part of evolution .

[Sarcasm]But...Smith is totally right. We should let ourselves be cured, from the disease that is ourselves. The cure, being total human annihilation by robots with us only around as an energy source living in the golden era of the 90's. Fuck the balance and Eriksonian ideas of the Matrix. [/Sarcasm]

This may turn into a debate if you all would like, although I will take no part in it. I just posted the quote thinking it was almost entirely true, and it spoke to me. It's also exactly my thoughts on the human race, well except the part where machines destroy the entire population.

Like I said at wc3edit.net:

2012 has already passed. The Mayan calender is ahead by four of the worldwide calender we use now. (citation needed) 2012=2008

Zync is entirely correct, there is no arguing his points here IMO.

Zync wrote:

I would agree that Smith's analogy of humanity to a Virus is correct, and I wouldn't argue against it being "evil". ( Whatever that word means ).

However, every living creature takes this path of consumption and migration. It certainly isn't unique to just Viruses and Humans. I mean, every creature that "migrates" in any shape or form, is doing such because of its consumption.

The only difference is the scale at which humans do it. The issue here is not "humanity" in its purest form, but the new modern concept of "humanity", i.e. human rights. We're outlawing evolutionary selection! It has become so bad, that the weakest of humans who should die; starting from (1) those who are born with sever metal or physical handicaps, to (2) those prone to early childhood genetic inflictions, to (3) the old who can no longer contribute; are in fact using up the MOST resources ( through the "medical business", not the "medical field") in attempt to keep these people alive. Plus, in the cases of (1) & (2), it's in hopes that some day they are able to breed and thereby infect the population even more.
It is the "intellectual humanity" NOT the "instinctive humanity" that is fucking up the world.

[ And yes, I would consider the chance to bear offspring a privilege, not a "right". In the rest of the animal kingdom, it is something you earn, and it should be the same for humans. ]

What we have done with medicine likely has no negative effect on evolution. Not all genetically ill or handicapped will live through their childhoods. In our society, sexual selection is constantly exerting downward pressure on the reproduction of the aforementioned ill and handicapped as well. Nothing is fucking up the world, the equilibrium condition is constantly changing, so the world is constantly changing. Humanity isn't a virus, it's simply a very successful evolutionary path due to increased intellectual capacity that allows for rapid learning. The argument that humans are a virus because their thriving growth caused other living populations to dwindle and perhaps even become extinct is entirely fallacious. Any given life form with a given evolutionary advancement would exert the same pressure on surrounding populations. If lions, for example, suddenly mutated an ATP powered laser beam on their heads, they would be quite successful at hunting. One might even say their growth and domination of all creatures lower on the food chain would be viral in nature, of course in that instance the One who said that would be fallacious and mistaken.

Pythagoras wrote:

If lions, for example, suddenly mutated an ATP powered laser beam on their heads, they would be quite successful at hunting.

I don't think so, I think if they gained laser beams they would be deemed dangerous to the surrounding population, and be hunted/captured to make sure they didn't hurt civilians or offset a balance in nature that ecofriendly people try to maintain. They'd also definitely be used in underground battles, much like cock fighting.

I'm pretty sure everyone (at least on this forum) would go see a battle between two lions with lasers that shot from their heads, assuming we weren't stopped by financial reasons, or major distance...or it being illegal. But fuck, we'd all WANT to go see it at least.

SinisteRing wrote:

Bartimaeus wrote:

Like I said at wc3edit.net:

2012 has already passed. The Mayan calender is ahead by four of the worldwide calender we use now. (citation needed) 2012=2008

The mayan calendar ended at 2016 in their calendar. The 2012 we have for the global scale is when it ends.

...crap?

Citation needed!!!

My argument is not that humans are a virus like the description Smith gives, but that all living beings follow this path of consumption and migration.

However, I continued to say that the only reason we could be compared to Smith's philosophical virus is because of our poor population, which is making our consumption rate so very large that we are running out of plausible places to migrate.

I went on still to describe what it means to be a part of the "poor population", taking the extreme, listing those who in all rights, would have died if not for the enormous amounts of resources it took to keep us alive; targeting, more specifically, those of us who will pass these traits on to our children. i.e. inflictions shown to have genetic links.

If you want to have a real debate, then I would greatly expand on my criterion as to what makes you part of the "poor populace". I'll go ahead and skip the history of heart disease, liver failure, and other questions a general practitioner would ask you when getting an overall health examination. And guess what? If you answer "yes" to more than one of those questions, then ( in my world ) you would forfeit the right to breed, i.e. you are part of the "poor populace".
{f}Is your IQ less than 100? Forfeit!
{d}Were you fat as a child ( i.e. BMI above 25.0 )? Forfeit!
{c}Are you fat now? ( This is more of a social questions, i.e. the burden of weakness of willpower placed on your child ) Forfeit!
{b}Do glasses/poor eye sight run in the family? Forfeit! (This would be hard to enforce in today's world. )
And finally, the million dollar question:
{a}Were you picked on as a child, by other children within a year or 2 of your own age? Forfeit!

I will admit that deep down, mainly due to my heavy analytical methodology of thought, I am quite judgmental. However, based on what I have gathered from people on this forum, I do think most of you would agree with me somewhere in my depicted scale of {a}-{f}. Now naturally you will place the cutoff right behind where you are. ( i.e. if you wear glasses, you will say that the cutoff should be at {b} because wearing glasses is fine, while you fat guys will go as far back as [d] because you would want to say it is fine to be fat. I will also not pretend to believe that the fact I pass my own list mere coincidence. There is probably something subconscious going on, making myself at least "good enough" for my own criterion, even though I know I'm not the best. )

However, I will go ahead and briefly defend my depiction. I will ignore those who say that being fat or dumb is ok, and make an argument from our own society for {b}:

I have a friend, whom I know through 2 separate forms of martial arts, who's major is Criminal Justice. I'm not exactly sure what her final professional goal is, however, here in AZ, for her to be able to apply as a police officer, she had to get lasik eye surgery because of her ( previously ) horrible vision. Ponder how much, time, energy, and materials went into the discovery of such a technology, when a social ideal would have completely removed the demand! This goes along with the movie "Super Size Me". The point being that "Health Care" is not care for the health, but care for the SICK! It's really "Sick Care". A healthy person doesn't go to the doctor, only a sick person does! THAT MAKES NO SENSE. It's like waiting for your engine to light on fire before you check the oil!

Anyways, I will quickly support myself in my belief in considering [a] the actual cut off for what makes someone part of the "poor populace" and thereby forfeit their right to breed. The idea comes from an a faith I have in a animal's instinct/subconscious/"whatever you call it, you know what I mean". You see it all the time in animals, where the runt gets picked on so much that one day he finally is trampled by the rest of his brother/sisters, and the resources from their mother is better divided among the stronger ones. In fact, you see it in our historical cultures, one example is expressed in the movie "300" as well as in our American tradition of handing the new-born child to the Father prior to the mother. It use to be the father's job to judge whether or not the child was fit for life! In Sparta, they would leave the child on a mountain top to let the god's "decide the child's fate".
We, deep down, know who are the weak and who are the strong in our species. My "heart" knows who I should love, who I will fear, and who I can laugh at. If we would just deeply listen to ourselves, beyond the conscious thought, beyond the greed, and even beyond the love, we would discover the instinct; and what a perfect thing it is.
Getting back on topic, everyone had one person or another try to pick on them as a child. Some of us were strong enough to stop it, or even fight back. However, those of you who were truly physically picked on know who you are ( even though you won't admit it ) and in our 21st century adulthood generation, it is over 80% of the population, when it should be under 20% ...

You realize your breeding out the intelligent people right? There is almost a direct correlation between bad eye sight and intelligence. Neither guarantees the other, but it makes it much more likely. E.G. My family has an average IQ over 120, and almost all of us wear glasses.

Picked on is the same issue. Smart children are a threat to idiots, therefore they are picked on. Your going to breed out people who were intelligent enough to be a threat to the mobs of idiots? Sure I beat the ass of anyone who messed with me, but that doesn't stop it from happening. All of the adults and teachers were on the side of the bullies because they were just as threatened by my intelligence. No one was ever punished for harassing me in any way during my 14 years in the public school system, however I was punished repeatedly for defending myself. Truthfully, I got more afraid of what I would do to the bullies and had to stop myself from beating their asses before I killed one of them. Although I was miserable, it gave me inner strength and a deep hatred for all children. I meditate to focus my inner strength, resolve, and emotional control almost every night. When I rule the world, bullying such as that will be eliminated by swift capital punishment.


In any case, back to the argument at hand. Minor correctable problems such as eye sight or upbringing are NOT reasons to prune someone from the gene pool. Low IQ, serious genetic medical issues, and deviant behaviors such as murder ARE reasons to weed people form the gene pool.

(And for the record, my vision is almost twice as good as most "normal" people because of my brain's heightened ability to process the information that the optic nerve sends. The fact that a tiny lense in my eye is slightly misshapen in such a way that is easy to correct is not reason to keep me from breeding. Even without glasses or Lasik my eye sight is good enough to survive. I would just have trouble reading or making out people from long distances.)

Zync wrote:

{f}Is your IQ less than 100? Forfeit!

IQ, although is a good predictor of grades in school (r=0.5) and jobs (r=0.3) , is not a very good indicator of actual "intelligence". That and by continuously not allowing people who are average and below to breed, you effectively raise where the deviation is set from...That and if you actually look at the history records people are becoming "smarter" in that the general IQ is rising, and if you were to compare, our grandparents would be receiving IQ's in the 70's which would imply mental retardation. There are different reasons and explanations for this such as the quality of education, the style and type of education which exposes children to more abstract ideas that IQ revolves around. Anyway, my point is really if I were to agree with your list, I wouldn't use IQ, especially since the validity isn't 100%, so a kid with 98 could have gotten unlucky, and a kid with 103 could have gotten lucky - so that's just silly. That and the actual reliability of different tests....If you were to further your argument, you should use another means of evaluating intelligence (If that was your goal). There's also a lot of cases, where people have very high IQ's but poor social skills, or even sociopathic tendencies - which you wouldn't be able to detect, and may even end up fostering. I would also like to note, that I'm arguing this as someone that is going into Psychology, and with an IQ of 128-136 depending on different tests, conditions etc. (Do remember that the is variability in the tests) so I shouldn't have a bias to defend myself from making the cut off.

Edit: I love how Zync predicted that people would argue the "cut-off" based on their own backgrounds. (Am basing this on Dragon's childhood).

{f}Is your IQ less than 100? Forfeit!
{d}Were you fat as a child ( i.e. BMI above 25.0 )? Forfeit!
{c}Are you fat now? ( This is more of a social questions, i.e. the burden of weakness of willpower placed on your child ) Forfeit!
{b}Do glasses/poor eye sight run in the family? Forfeit! (This would be hard to enforce in today's world. )
And finally, the million dollar question:
{a}Were you picked on as a child, by other children within a year or 2 of your own age? Forfeit!

1. There is no way to measure true intelligence. Believe in an IQ test, and I think you forfeit your rights. That's "weak" wisdom.

2. You forfeit somebody's rights because they like eating more than usual?

3. Some people don't care what people think of them. What are you, one of those shallow fools that only care in looks?

4. Eyesight? I wish I could flame, because if I could, I would have a very certain word here for you.

5. Because you are physically weak makes you an undesirable?

6. Your points are completely ridiculous. If we were be ruled by you, we'd all be exinct. Bad genes are always present, no matter what. Bad eye sight could come from someone a thousand years ago. You forfeit their rights based on random chance? Even if they're a mastermind, you'd still consider them trash because they have poor eyesight? You sir, are a complete fool for not allowing someone like that to breed.

On another note - being fat is (in an evolutionary sense, and assuming metabolism, not self control issues) is a good thing...It just means your body/metabolism is more efficient since it can store more potential energy....

my birthday is December 21st, I will be 30 years old. Hopefully this will be the best birthday ever.

Zync wrote:

<walloftext>

So basically what you're saying is 1. You agree with me that all living things would fall under the definition of virus if Smith's hypothesis is not rejected and 2. That you'd prefer it if an additional strict (somewhat arbitrary) artificial (meaning human derived) selection method was applied to the human population. As I said previously, evolution continues, you can breed only the dumbest of the population, and out of this new dumb-only population eventually the best of them will begin to thrive.

Instead of breeding for arbitrary traits and insinuating that receiving bullying is somehow genetically related. I would breed for things like functioning polydactyly and other interesting changes like that.

Pythagoras wrote:

So basically what you're saying is 1. You agree with me that all living things would fall under the definition of virus if Smith's hypothesis is not rejected

Not at all. In fact, what I've been saying is that NOTHING falls into his "virus" category. It's really such an exaggeration of what viruses actually do that no living thing, including an actual virus, falls into that category.

Pythagoras wrote:

2. That you'd prefer it if an additional strict (somewhat arbitrary) artificial (meaning human derived) selection method was applied to the human population.

Wait what?! I didn't take you for a romantic or a theologian; "human derived" is all we have, there's absolutely nothing "artificial" about it. Man-made or man-found is truth. If you can't accept that antecedent, than you might as well stop talking, because there's no point in a consequence.

Pythagoras wrote:

As I said previously, evolution continues, you can breed only the dumbest of the population, and out of this new dumb-only population eventually the best of them will begin to thrive.

Only if the information to be the best is maintained yet not expressed in these "dumb-only" peoples. To which I could not agree to be determinable. However, if the desired traits ARE being expressed, then there is at least a certain chance, instead of no chance at all.

Pythagoras wrote:

Instead of breeding for arbitrary traits and insinuating that receiving bullying is somehow genetically related. I would breed for things like functioning polydactyly and other interesting changes like that.

Um ... we breed any animal, from chickens, to dogs, to fruit flies for desired traits. Humans should be no different. If you want more six fingered children, then make a case for it. But thinking about my child being born with genes more adept for lean muscle verses an average-sized child with six fingers, I would want the strong one. I mean, I would rather BE the strong one. But if you have a good reason for it, I'd like to hear it.

( Ya, sorry for double posting, but everyone responses are SO different I'd like to give each one a little attention at the least. )

Bartimaeus wrote:

{f}Is your IQ less than 100? Forfeit!
{d}Were you fat as a child ( i.e. BMI above 25.0 )? Forfeit!
{c}Are you fat now? ( This is more of a social questions, i.e. the burden of weakness of willpower placed on your child ) Forfeit!
{b}Do glasses/poor eye sight run in the family? Forfeit! (This would be hard to enforce in today's world. )
And finally, the million dollar question:
{a}Were you picked on as a child, by other children within a year or 2 of your own age? Forfeit!

1. There is no way to measure true intelligence. Believe in an IQ test, and I think you forfeit your rights. That's "weak" wisdom.

There are always outliers. I never said the system was perfect, I did state that it would fix our human issue of over-consumption, and implied that it would be FAR better than our current, "go have fun but don't talk about it" society.

Bartimaeus wrote:

2. You forfeit somebody's rights because they like eating more than usual?

Of course. Food is a drug like any other.

Bartimaeus wrote:

3. Some people don't care what people think of them. What are you, one of those shallow fools that only care in looks?

I'm not shallow, I'm an animal. I'm not going to pick out some computer generated image of a human and say we should breed for that target. That's insane. Diversity is good, and needed for a healthy genetic pool. But there are traits that are bad, period! And, once the USA gets to socialized medicine ( probably when we are senior citizens ) then the social "incorrectness" of insulting a fat person for being fat will fade when it is costing ever tax payer money to feed their greed ( this is analogous to the way smokers are criticized in our society today ).

Bartimaeus wrote:

4. Eyesight? I wish I could flame, because if I could, I would have a very certain word here for you.

So you wear glasses. But I will clarify that if you only need reading glasses past the age of 30, and didn't need prior to the end of your "breeding age" ( around 45-50 ) then I would not have any real issue with it. I don't consider wrinkles bad, and issues with sight MUCH later in life could arguably fall into that category. However, if you had to wear classes prior to puberty, than absolutely, you forfeit! You're carrying a genetic disease.

Bartimaeus wrote:

5. Because you are physically weak makes you an undesirable?

Um, no duh ...

Bartimaeus wrote:

6. Your points are completely ridiculous. If we were be ruled by you, we'd all be exinct.

Absolutely not. Almost all of the father's side would pass, all of his ancestors would, and most of my mother's side would pass. There are plenty of well-built people in this world. If only 10% of the world's 6.77 billion people passed my criteria ( which I would assume the number to be more around 15% ) that would leave 677 million breeders in the world! Extinct?! Come on now ...

Bartimaeus wrote:

Bad genes are always present, no matter what.

Of course, it's called "mutation".

Bartimaeus wrote:

Bad eye sight could come from someone a thousand years ago.

Meaning what?

Bartimaeus wrote:

You forfeit their rights based on random chance?

Of course.

Bartimaeus wrote:

Even if they're a mastermind, you'd still consider them trash because they have poor eyesight? You sir, are a complete fool for not allowing someone like that to breed.

Trash? No, I'd consider them a {b}. Did you not understand my post? In this world, you would only breed the best of the best. This would keep humans from destroying themselves while creating a healthier and happier populous ( on the assumption that health and happiness are correlated ).

( Yes, yes, 3rd post in a row. But to structure them together would make the world's largest and most unreadable post, so ... )

Dragonheart91 wrote:

You realize your breeding out the intelligent people right? There is almost a direct correlation between bad eye sight and intelligence. Neither guarantees the other, but it makes it much more likely. E.G. My family has an average IQ over 120, and almost all of us wear glasses.

I have 2 brothers, of the 3 of us, not one wears glasses, and on average have an IQ of about 135 ( I am actually the lowest at about 131-132 ). My youngest brother was actually put through weeks of testing after high school and was "certified genius", whatever that means.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

Picked on is the same issue. Smart children are a threat to idiots, therefore they are picked on. Your going to breed out people who were intelligent enough to be a threat to the mobs of idiots? Sure I beat the ass of anyone who messed with me, but that doesn't stop it from happening. All of the adults and teachers were on the side of the bullies because they were just as threatened by my intelligence. No one was ever punished for harassing me in any way during my 14 years in the public school system, however I was punished repeatedly for defending myself. Truthfully, I got more afraid of what I would do to the bullies and had to stop myself from beating their asses before I killed one of them. Although I was miserable, it gave me inner strength and a deep hatred for all children. I meditate to focus my inner strength, resolve, and emotional control almost every night. When I rule the world, bullying such as that will be eliminated by swift capital punishment.

The smart AND physically able children are not picked on, and they are the only ones we want ( in this world ). Did someone try to tell you that intelligence and strength can't be in the same body at the same time to make you feel better or have you simply played so many games that you have drained your mind into such conclusions on your own?

Dragonheart91 wrote:

In any case, back to the argument at hand. Minor correctable problems such as eye sight or upbringing are NOT reasons to prune someone from the gene pool. Low IQ, serious genetic medical issues, and deviant behaviors such as murder ARE reasons to weed people form the gene pool.

Actually, the good/desired traits will be held in people who don't have these "minor correctable problems", so they 100% should be pruned.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

(And for the record, my vision is almost twice as good as most "normal" people because of my brain's heightened ability to process the information that the optic nerve sends. The fact that a tiny lense in my eye is slightly misshapen in such a way that is easy to correct is not reason to keep me from breeding. Even without glasses or Lasik my eye sight is good enough to survive. I would just have trouble reading or making out people from long distances.)

I don't know how you would determine this "optic nerve" thing, and by this time in your post it sounds to me that you suffer from, what my brothers and I generally call, "short-guy syndrome", simply meaning, that you suffer from low self-esteem for one reason or another, and therefore make up things to try and convince yourself you are at least the equal to those you instinctively feel inferior to. ( You don't have to be short to have this "syndrome", it's just more commonly found in males below 5'8". ) Therefore, I'm not going to respond to this paragraph.
You should read "1984" by George Orwell. Inferior people have their places, and can be happy in life as well. ( And yes, I am getting a little brash with this last part, because it seems that you're just bantering based on emotion instead of thought. Again, the "short-guy syndrome". )

( yes, another one, bear with me ... )

Jay.J wrote:

On another note - being fat is (in an evolutionary sense, and assuming metabolism, not self control issues) is a good thing...It just means your body/metabolism is more efficient since it can store more potential energy....

Every mammal body is able to store and metabolize fat. Without it, a mammal would have to continuously eat ( literally non-stop ) to maintain body heat through active digestion. ( Don't think I'm using the "correct" words, but I'm sure you understand the meaning Jay.J ).
My point is that if you're a fat American, than you suffer from one of two possible conditions:
{1} You are genetically predisposed to put on too much fat for a society based on agriculture. ( Instead of hunting/gathering society, where the more fat could be argued. I don't think you'd convince me, but you'd have a chance. ) In this case you shouldn't breed. ( Although you could adopt ).
{2} You have poor and greedy habits that should not be passed on to your children. This is a social argument, not a genetic one, but the point of this system ( for me ) is to give the most potential possible to all humans. If a possible parent has habits that are obviously going to reduce their children's potential, then they should not raise children, just as the ones who are genetically going to reduce their children's potential shouldn't raise children.

Zync wrote:

{1} You are genetically predisposed to put on too much fat for a society based on agriculture. ( Instead of hunting/gathering society, where the more fat could be argued. I don't think you'd convince me, but you'd have a chance. ) In this case you shouldn't breed. ( Although you could adopt ).

Indeed. You're LESS "Fit" for a PARTICULAR environment that we are CURRENTLY in. You're pretty smart, you should realize the point of genetic variation is to have different combinations of genes so that we would be able to survive in different types of areas. Pretty sure they teach that in like grade 11/12 Biology. The point of maintaining the genes that make one fat would be, if there was ever a situation that induced famine, or a natural disaster that destroyed society and we had to revert to a hunter gatherer society etc. They're more fit for that environment. Just because they're less fit for the current environment, doesn't mean it's not beneficial for other environments. Lower intelligence, Eyesight, etc. are things that wouldn't really be good in any situation - however having a more efficient metabolism can be better in certain environments. You might want to keep that in your dictator world.

Zync wrote:

{2} You have poor and greedy habits that should not be passed on to your children. This is a social argument, not a genetic one, but the point of this system ( for me ) is to give the most potential possible to all humans. If a possible parent has habits that are obviously going to reduce their children's potential, then they should not raise children, just as the ones who are genetically going to reduce their children's potential shouldn't raise children.

Same thing, you're assuming this environment will always last and that the fat gene will never be useful, when it very well could be. A large reason (Obviously there is genetics, but to a lesser degree than other heritable qualities) for obesity is because of culture & environment, and under your dictatorship that culture wouldn't arise so even if the gene was still around you wouldn't have fat people, but you would maintain the gene for possible calamities.

On another note, I love Pyths quote where he just says "Wall of text"....and another completely unrelated note - you never replied to my IQ bit - I assume you just accept that I'm right in that regard then?