An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 18:56 (689 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).

From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.

However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.

David: I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.

Tony: It is not simply a case of plundering the planet, though that definitely happens on a incredible scale. The way human society has developed is toxic, both to the planet and to ourselves. The vast majority of problems that plague humanity emerge directly from the fact that our preferred social construct, that of city dwelling, is not sustainable at scale. It utterly destroys the environment in which the cities emerge, and forces people into very unnatural states by simple proximity. Decentralize the population and, by and large, the problems disappear. Of course, that won't happen naturally any more. Humanity has made its choice in terms of social growth, the outcome is inevitable, and utterly irreversible. Nothing short of a global cataclysm could reconcile humanity with our ancestral home, and unfortunately, I am almost certain that is in the making.

I don't mean to sound like a doomsday crackpot, but it is simply the convergence of thousands of points of data into a single inescapable conclusion. The measures we have taken are inadequate because we have not addressed the underlying cause: cities. Population density spurs pollution, disease, famine, poverty, and eventually, war and death. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. In medicine, we realize that toxicity is largely a matter of dosage. Humans in high concentrations(cities) are toxic. There is no escaping that fact. The greater the concentration, the higher the toxicity. Like other animals, high concentrations lead to competition for resources, which leads to deprivation and violence as the system begins to fail, vainly struggling to re-balance itself.

The earth provides enough resources, even for our current population, but not the way that the resources and people are distributed. We have poisoned our water and air to the point it has become toxic for life. Food is wasted or horded on an unimaginable scale. It's really very sad. You can't even step outside for a breath of 'fresh' air anymore.

David: Your discussion is why I live on a ranch more than 50 miles from Houston, and the local town is perhaps 6,000.

Tony: And part of the reason I live on a farm about 50 miles away from the nearest major city

Twin thinkers!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum