Human beings as parasites

[redcannon]

I was thinking about the widely accepted idea that human beings are parasites of the earth. It made me think of what a parastie was. In parasitic symbiosis, one entity lives off of another entity, while the other entity gets no benefit at all and is actually harmed by the first entity.
as humans, we exploit the worlds resources, but we also give back nutrients to the earth by decomposing (at least those of us that are not cremated).

because we give back even just a tiny fraction of what we take, is it mutual symbiosis with the earth? or are humans still parasites?

[RebelDog]

Human beings are not harming the earth. The earth as an entity cannot be 'harmed'. We are changing it and competing with other species and thus harming them to greater and lesser degrees. Humans are not parasitical, they are this planet's undisputed masters at exploiting their environment.

[Vanguard1917]

I was thinking about the widely accepted idea that human beings are parasites of the earth.

I don't think that it's a 'widely accepted idea' - at least not yet. It is true, however, that it is a widely publicised idea - especially by the mainstream environmentalist movement in the West.

The idea that human beings are having a parasitic impact on 'Nature' is deeply misanthropic - it is based on an extremely disturbing disdain for people.

All progressives have a duty to wipe such reactionary ideas off the face of this earth.

In reality, rather than being parasitic, human beings are having a highly creative effect on the earth. Contrary to widespread misconceptions (larger circulated by Greens), our environment is improving from a human perspective, not getting worse. More human beings are living longer, healthier and safer lives on earth than ever before. The earth has never before been more suitable for human inhabitation than it is today. And this is down to human ingenuity.

We cannot have a progressive anti-capitalist politics until we first counter the highly pervasive influence of 21st century misanthropism.

[Luís Henrique]

Of course we are parasites: we live on the dead bodies of other living beings. Is this a moral question? No, it is not. Nature is not a moral environment.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Of course we are parasites: we live on the dead bodies of other living beings.

You can interpret agriculture as parasitic if you want. I interpret it as humanity being productive.

Capitalism's problem is that it's not productive enough.

[RNK]

How exactly is humanity being productive for anything but itself? A cancerous tumour can be rationalized as being productive; it feeds itself and grows. Overall, though, tumours, like humanity, are causing harm to the planet. We are destroying forests, not making them grow. We are exterminating species of animals, not developing new ones. And depending on who you ask, we are destroying the environment, not strengthening it.

[Captain Communism]

Of course humanity is a parasite, we are more of a virus, we do only what we can to survive its basic instinct. We only care about something when it can lead to disaster for us. We have only begun to appreciate everything around us but thats only come out of loss. So of course we are a disease, a plague, a virus what ever you want to call us, but it has always been human to think for ourselves, just look at everything around you, it's all come out of selfishness and that we wouldnt give a woodern nickel if some random species dies hlaf way across the world for it. I would expect everyone here that they would think for themselves instead of our world because everything we do to help the world is to help us, that humanity in a whole is a self serving parasite.

[tolstoyevski]

Let's make it clear. Concrete analyze of concrete situations.

Under which economic system?

Are we talking about an abstract, non-existing, homogenous humanity concept?

Or are we talking about a heterogenous humanity which is divided into classes?

If so, shouldn't we say that the ruling classes has the responsibility of harming the earth and therefore not all the humankind but the ruling classes are parasites? Because they think of nothing but their benefits..

if it's a matter of an abstract humanity concept which is harming the world indenpendent from the economic systems, then the road for nihilism is open. By abstracting this term we define an eternal "humanity" concept that was and will be destroying from the beginning of its existence. But what happened to the endless change which is the main basis of our materialism? What happened to our non-essentialist approach to (wo)mankind who is shaped by her conditions?

Human as a parasite.. That's what the liberals always say about evil human instincts which are eager to kill and destroy.

refuse-resist..

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:37 am
I was thinking about the widely accepted idea that human beings are parasites of the earth. It made me think of what a parastie was. In parasitic symbiosis, one entity lives off of another entity, while the other entity gets no benefit at all and is actually harmed by the first entity.
as humans, we exploit the worlds resources, but we also give back nutrients to the earth by decomposing (at least those of us that are not cremated).

because we give back even just a tiny fraction of what we take, is it mutual symbiosis with the earth? or are humans still parasites?
I would say yes because some parasites can have a mutual relationship with whatever organism they are living off, meaning both get the benefit, known as 'Mutualism'.

Having said that, would any such entity be referred to as a parasite?

[Vanguard1917]

If so, shouldn't we say that the ruling classes has the responsibility of harming the earth and therefore not all the humankind but the ruling classes are parasites? Because they think of nothing but their benefits..

'Ruling class' is not in the environmentalists' vocabulary. When they call us parasites, they're refering to... well, us: people who drive cars, eat burgers and have better things to worry about than whether or not their TV set is off standby.

[Jazzratt]

This is a load of bollocks, we can only really be a parasite if the earth that we're "harming" could also be considered a single entity. What it actually is, of course is a large selection of entities balanced on a rock in space. We cannot identify ourselves as parasites because we kill other organisms, after all most organisms do that - we simply do it on a larger scale and scale has nothing to do with the judgement of whether or not we are parasites.

Naturally the "parasite" term could be a metaphor but I don't think it's particularly helpful as a way of understanding the world - even if you could describe us as parasites I doubt that would stop behaviour that you consider "parasitical", in fact I'd be more inclined to use that as a reason - "We can't help destroying things, we're naturally parasites".

Anyway, I disagree with the entire idea, partly for the reasons stated above and partly because it's batshit misanthropy.

[tolstoyevski]

jazzratt:


We cannot identify ourselves as parasites because we kill other organisms, after all most organisms do that - we simply do it on a larger scale and scale has nothing to do with the judgement of whether or not we are parasites.

pure metaphysics.. totalizing.. mixing apples with pears..

human are different from the other organisms. we have consciousness, we can produce commodities, means of (social) production, means of (mass) destruction.

so if we're telling that human are harming other organisms, each other and the earth on a larger scale, that's not only a quantitative point but a qualitative problem.

What I mean by qualitative is the human's power to destroy the earth, other organisms and the humankind with atomic bombs--which are developed, produced and used by social organisations--totally in an organised manner which the other organisms cannot.

The main point is that, every harm done by other organisms also play a positive role for the production and reproduction of life. So with the word "harming" we don't mean consuming of nature which can be reversible, be useful for reproduction and play a progressive role in the development of humankind. For ex. we have to eat vegetables etc. to think and to produce. Instead, we are talking about irreversible changes, extinction of species, nuclear tests, wars, petrol leakages which mostly won't occure in a classless society. That's something more than a "large scale" harming.

So we have to accept that human affects the balance of nature negatively especially since the industrial revolution.

[Vargha Poralli]

We are parasites at the current age/mode of production. It is a fact. There is nothing to emotional about it.

But we should attempt to start being less parasitic for our own good. I don't have a method for it at the current situation,but it is a matter which we have to concentrate in near future.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:09 pm
human are different from the other organisms. we have consciousness, we can produce commodities, means of (social) production, means of (mass) destruction.
Right.


so if we're telling that human are harming other organisms, each other and the earth on a larger scale, that's not only a quantitative point but a qualitative problem.

What I mean by qualitative is the human's power to destroy the earth, other organisms and the humankind with atomic bombs--which are developed, produced and used by social organisations--totally in an organised manner which the other organisms cannot.
The quality you're judging it on isn't the quality of a parasite though, whether something is organised or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether such destruction is parasitic.


The main point is that, every harm done by other organisms also play a positive role for the production and reproduction of life.
Not so. What about actual parasites?

So with the word "harming" we don't mean consuming of nature which can be reversible, be useful for reproduction and play a progressive role in the development of humankind. For ex. we have to eat vegetables etc. to think and to produce.
Okay, on to what you are talking about then:


Instead, we are talking about irreversible changes, extinction of species,
Simply killing or causing the deaths of a species, whilst bad, is not the action of a parasite.

nuclear tests, wars,
These are simply more efficient ways of killing things, purely quantitative
petrol leakages
How is this parasitic?

which mostly won't occure in a classless society. That's something more than a "large scale" harming.
I'd contend that petrol still leaks and species still die out regardless of the existance of class. Of course eventually in a classless society we will develop alternative fuels/ better methods of keeping existing species alive but these problems won't simply disappear, it will take a lot of work from engineers and scientists.


So we have to accept that human affects the balance of nature negatively especially since the industrial revolution.
I'm not contending they haven't, do do so would be folly - I am simply pointing out that, unless you subscribe to the gaia hypothesis or something similar, doing so is not parasitic.

[Wozza]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 06, 2007 07:08 am
Human beings are not harming the earth. The earth as an entity cannot be 'harmed'. We are changing it and competing with other species and thus harming them to greater and lesser degrees. Humans are not parasitical, they are this planet's undisputed masters at exploiting their environment.
I think you will find 'Global Warming' harms the Earth (in an entity sense) as it has been changing the natural weather cycles.

[beneath the wheel]

to decide if human beings are parasites is a function of religion.

in other words, if we were put on the earth by a supernatural being and are not totaly indigenous to the earth, and you consider the earth to be "alive", and you believe the actions we have taken have changed the earth in a way that has harmed it, then we are parasites.

if you consider humans to be a natural fenomonon that occours on the earth, then we are not anymore a parasite to the earth than a martian storm is to mars.

i do not believe that we are parasites to the earth (although i do not believe we are changing it in a positive way). however, i do believe that we are parasidic to other forms of life, and in many cases, other human beings.

please excuse any mispellings. :D

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Wozza+April 16, 2007 10:57 am--> (Wozza @ April 16, 2007 10:57 am)
The [email protected] 06, 2007 07:08 am
Human beings are not harming the earth. The earth as an entity cannot be 'harmed'. We are changing it and competing with other species and thus harming them to greater and lesser degrees. Humans are not parasitical, they are this planet's undisputed masters at exploiting their environment.
I think you will find 'Global Warming' harms the Earth (in an entity sense) as it has been changing the natural weather cycles. [/b]
You missed his point, I see.

[Luís Henrique]

We are parasytes now, have been on the past, and will be in the future, unless we start being photosynthetical.

We are not parasytes of "Earth" - that's a religious view of Earth as a deity. We are parasytes of corn, cattle, horses, sheep, chicken, rabbits, lettuce, appletrees, pines, strawberries, etc.

And this has nothing to do with morals. It is the way we are biologically built; we can do nothing about it.

Luís Henrique

[TC]

to describe human beings as parasites would be describing the earth as an organism; its not.

global warming doesn't hurt the earth, the earth is not a thing that can experience hurt the way a person or animal does...global warming is only undesirable because it has the potential to hurt us and we describe the earth as being 'hurt' when its less hospitable to us not when its actually hurt.

There is no earth-mother gaia goddess that prefers to be green and blue than venus or mars like.

People are only parasites when they're living off of other people, as capitalists do.

[graffic]

Human beings as parasites reminds me of the Satanic nationalist black metal bands from Norway

[ichneumon]

oh my, y'all don't know much about ecology, do you?

jazzratt:


This is a load of bollocks, we can only really be a parasite if the earth that we're "harming" could also be considered a single entity. What it actually is, of course is a large selection of entities balanced on a rock in space. We cannot identify ourselves as parasites because we kill other organisms, after all most organisms do that - we simply do it on a larger scale and scale has nothing to do with the judgement of whether or not we are parasites.

Naturally the "parasite" term could be a metaphor but I don't think it's particularly helpful as a way of understanding the world - even if you could describe us as parasites I doubt that would stop behaviour that you consider "parasitical", in fact I'd be more inclined to use that as a reason - "We can't help destroying things, we're naturally parasites".


The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis that proposes that living and nonliving parts of the earth are viewed as a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism. Named after the Greek earth goddess, this hypothesis postulates that all living things have a regulatory effect on the Earth's environment that promotes life overall.


fyi, i REALLY wish we'd chosen some other name for the hypothesis.

at the very least, the earth is an ecosystem. there are organisms that secure and promote the stability of an ecosystem, and those that destroy it. the relationship between humans and the earth is that of a very small group of entities that live on the body of the host and whose well being and continued existence is 100% tied to that of the host. thus we are micro-symbiotes with the earth/biosphere, and can be either mutualists, commensuals or parasites. humans are basically the only species on earth capable of harming the biosphere as a whole - even to the extent of making it unable to support human life. it is perfectly rational to talk of humans as parasites given this viewpoint.

this is not misanthropic. how else would you categorize the relationship? this is a scientific paradigm for establishing the relationship between organisms. the fact that it puts humans in the same category as tapeworms is irrelevant. you can dispute the Gaia hypothesis, but there are many levels of this and it doesn't take much to get to the human-parasite bit.

another take on this is to consider humanity's place in the gaian organism. gee, looks like a nervous system, without any unified brain. if humans are just another species on the earth, and our technology is no different from a weather cycle, then clearly the earth is becoming a unified organism tres vite. the problem being that this nervous system is putting a large strain on the organism, and it's not yet clear whether biosphere can support such a thing. this is often true, evolutionarily, when a parasite first adapts to a new host. at first, there's much damage, which harms both parties, then it settles down to cause as little damage as possible while securing it's own reproduction. there are many species, humans included, that cannot live without our mutualistic microsymbiots. remember that mitochondria where originally free living, as where chloroplasts.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:36 pm

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis that proposes that living and nonliving parts of the earth are viewed as a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism. Named after the Greek earth goddess, this hypothesis postulates that all living things have a regulatory effect on the Earth's environment that promotes life overall.


fyi, i REALLY wish we'd chosen some other name for the hypothesis.
That's really fair enough :lol:


at the very least, the earth is an ecosystem. there are organisms that secure and promote the stability of an ecosystem, and those that destroy it. the relationship between humans and the earth is that of a very small group of entities that live on the body of the host and whose well being and continued existence is 100% tied to that of the host. thus we are micro-symbiotes with the earth/biosphere, and can be either mutualists, commensuals or parasites. humans are basically the only species on earth capable of harming the biosphere as a whole - even to the extent of making it unable to support human life. it is perfectly rational to talk of humans as parasites given this viewpoint.
"given this viewpoint" so, speaking from the viewpoint of taking an untested, controversial hypothesis as fact it becomes rational? Do you not see how fucking braindead this thinking is?


this is not misanthropic. how else would you categorize the relationship? this is a scientific paradigm for establishing the relationship between organisms. the fact that it puts humans in the same category as tapeworms is irrelevant. you can dispute the Gaia hypothesis, but there are many levels of this and it doesn't take much to get to the human-parasite bit.
I would still dispute that an ecology is the same as an organism, it's not a helpful model - for a start an living organism does not interact with a non-living environment in the same way as, for example, my spleen and I interact. Terra is fine sans lifeforms, I'm buggered if I'm less one spleen. This is not to say that damaging our environment is not a bad thing, this is just to say that talking in terms of parasites is unhelpful bollocks.

[ichneumon]

I would still dispute that an ecology is the same as an organism, it's not a helpful model - for a start an living organism does not interact with a non-living environment in the same way as, for example, my spleen and I interact. Terra is fine sans lifeforms, I'm buggered if I'm less one spleen. This is not to say that damaging our environment is not a bad thing, this is just to say that talking in terms of parasites is unhelpful bollocks.

you'd be buggered without your intestinal flora, you inorganic bones and you'd be dead without your mitochondria. birds have to eat stones and gravel to digest food. you carry the ocean around with you, all terrestrial animals do. organisms use nonliving parts all the time.

the point of the parasite analogy is that it presents a way OUT. we can be mutualists, but we have to look at what that entails. to be a mutualist, we actually have to HELP life on earth, not just coexist as most species do. can humans function on earth without controlling the biosphere? primitivists say we have to back down and be commensuals, with technology that makes no real impact. yuck. i go the other way - we can use technology to prevent extinction level events and someday to spread life to other worlds. but first we have to understand the biosphere. still SF, though.

for me, the Gaia hypothesis is about disease. the biosphere is producing new, human specific diseases at a truly frightening rate, which seems to be a regulatory phenomenon. not that there is an intelligence behind it, but that the biosphere is a complex system with it's own version of homeostatic balance. from the human point of view, this SUCKS ASS, and i'm thwarting gaia or whatever in my career. still, most new disease come from 1)eating meat, 2)overpopulation and 3)human expansion into new areas.

point one: is the gaia hypothesis correct? unknown. could humans make it true? certainly, we seem to be doing so now.

point two: is it politically useful, or even desirable? dunno. y'all figure that out.

[Vanguard1917]

Human beings are curing more diseases than ever. And, in the economically advanced countries, people are living longer and healthier lives than ever before.

Those who are trying create a climate of hostility and fear towards economic progress often like to point to the rise in cancer cases in industrially developed parts of the world, in order to show that modern society is bad for us. In truth, however, the increase in cancer cases in developed countries is due to two highly positive factors:

i) Improvements in medical diagnosis: i.e. the ability to diagnose cancer before it kills you.
ii) Increasing life expectancies: i.e. in the economically advanced countries, people are actually living long enough to develop cancer in the first place (since the vast majority of cancer cases involves people over 60).

Take your 'gaia hypothesis' or whatever elsewhere. When human beings were living 'in harmony with nature' or 'mutually', as part of 'nature's web of life', or whatever disturbed Green utopia which never existed, human life was nasty, brutish and short.

It's only when human beings started to separate themselves from nature, and began to learn to master nature, that the existence of humanity on earth began to improve. Progressives want to see more of this mastery of nature. A lot more of it.

[ichneumon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:43 pm
Human beings are curing more diseases than ever. And, in the economically advanced countries, people are living longer and healthier lives than ever before.

Those who are trying create a climate of hostility and fear towards economic progress often like to point to the rise in cancer cases in industrially developed parts of the world, in order to show that modern society is bad for us. In truth, however, the increase in cancer cases in developed countries is due to two highly positive factors:

i) Improvements in medical diagnosis: i.e. the ability to diagnose cancer before it kills you.
ii) Increasing life expectancies: i.e. in the economically advanced countries, people are actually living long enough to develop cancer in the first place (since the vast majority of cancer cases involves people over 60).


you're not paying attention. humans are losing the war on disease. this is a scientific fact, not subject to debate. since the '50's, the rise of resistant disease organisms has utterly reversed our previous gains. we have exterminated ONE disease. we have HUNDREDS of new diseases.

i don't give a crap about your 1st world humanity, living fat and bloated off the suffering of the 3rd world. talk about parasites.

i'm not talking about cancer, except in a few cases. i'm talking about infectious disease.


Take your 'gaia hypothesis' or whatever elsewhere. When human beings were living 'in harmony with nature' or 'mutually', as part of 'nature's web of life', or whatever disturbed Green utopia which never existed, human life was nasty, brutish and short.

It's only when human beings started to separate themselves from nature, and began to learn to master nature, that the existence of humanity on earth began to improve. Progressives want to see more of this mastery of nature. A lot more of it.

you're just the kind of person who would flog a horse to death, and then curse it for dying. or, for that matter, drive an engine without oil, then blame it for not running.

i pointed out the role of primitivists in the gaia bit, and stated my opinion of them. you, on the other hand, are anti-life to the point of neurosis. you probably go out of your way to step on bugs. can't you understand that humans will never accept living in stinking tin cans, with recycled air, recycled piss to drink, eating what - i have no idea, you seem to think that one can wave a wand and produce food.

if you want to discuss this issue, please be rational and respond clearly.

[Vanguard1917]

you're not paying attention. humans are losing the war on disease. this is a scientific fact, not subject to debate. since the '50's, the rise of resistant disease organisms has utterly reversed our previous gains. we have exterminated ONE disease. we have HUNDREDS of new diseases.

What the hell are you talking about?

Human beings are living longer and healthier lives on earth than ever before. We have never been better at dealing with disease than we are today.

The reason that millions of people continue to die of curable, treatable and preventable diseases every year is because of the lack of economic and social development and poor health services.

And, of course, a million people suffering from malaria every year because environmentalist pressure got third world governments to stop using DDT. This is something which we will never forget.


i don't give a crap about your 1st world humanity, living fat and bloated off the suffering of the 3rd world. talk about parasites.

You don't want first world living standards in the developing world, as you've stated before. I think that people in the developing world deserve at least first world living standard.

You condemn the first world masses for consuming 'too much', calling them 'fat and bloated'. I think living standard are not high enough in the first world.

And you reveal your disgust of ordinary people by refering to them as 'parasites'.

I find it intriguing that a person with such backward and reactionary views can be attracted to a leftwing discussion board.


i pointed out the role of primitivists in the gaia bit, and stated my opinion of them. you, on the other hand, are anti-life to the point of neurosis. you probably go out of your way to step on bugs. can't you understand that humans will never accept living in stinking tin cans, with recycled air, recycled piss to drink, eating what - i have no idea, you seem to think that one can wave a wand and produce food.


if you want to discuss this issue, please be rational and respond clearly.

:lol: The irony...

[ichneumon]

Human beings are living longer and healthier lives on earth than ever before. We have never been better at dealing with disease than we are today.

the life expectancy in south africa, an INDUSTRIALIZED 1st world nation, is now 40. we are HELPLESS in the face of the HIV pandemic. in subsaharan africa, 30% of adults are infected with a lethal disease. life expectancy is dropping like a stone all over the 3rd world.


The reason that millions of people continue to die of curable, treatable and preventable diseases every year is because of the lack of economic and social development and poor health services.

And, of course, a million people suffering from malaria every year because environmentalist pressure got third world governments to stop using DDT. This is something which we will never forget.

more diseases become uncurable every year. more new, viral diseases pop up from no where every year. many diseases have cures that are expensive, and no one will pay for them. capitalism controls medical technology. no one tries to cure the diseases of the poor, because they are poor. blaming this on environmentalists instead of CAPITALISM is a sick joke.


You don't want first world living standards in the developing world, as you've stated before. I think that people in the developing world deserve at least first world living standard.

You condemn the first world masses for consuming 'too much', calling them 'fat and bloated'. I think living standard are not high enough in the first world.

And you reveal your disgust of ordinary people by refering to them as 'parasites'.

I find it intriguing that a person with such backward and reactionary views can be attracted to a leftwing discussion board.

a 1st worlder spends money on a neat new car, a 2nd home, a vacation to the bahamas, a gold necklace, while a 3rd world person can't pay for FOOD. yes, that disgusts me. you disgust me. you frankly ally yourself with a class that is defined by bourgeois privilege, then try to justify it with political voodoo. you 'want' everything to find and merry, so you are not responsible for what you are actually doing.

flaming is not allowed in this forum, no further off-topic responses will follow.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just as an aside, the idea that not everyone can enjoy first-world (or close to) living standards is mere propaganda - used by the ruling class to justify all sorts of oppression against the developing world, as well as by primmies and Greenpeace style eco-wackjobs in order to advance their own ideologies.

[Vanguard1917]

the life expectancy in south africa, an INDUSTRIALIZED 1st world nation, is now 40.

Although some regional development exists, South Africa is not an 'industrialised 1st world nation'.


life expectancy is dropping like a stone all over the 3rd world.

Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, life expectancy is rising fairly steadily in the third world - not 'dropping like a stone'.


many diseases have cures that are expensive, and no one will pay for them. capitalism controls medical technology. no one tries to cure the diseases of the poor, because they are poor.

Then you understand that the reason people are suffering needlessly from treatable and preventable diseases is related - first and foremost - to poverty? So it is not due to the emergence of new resistant super-bugs from hell? It is not because 'more diseases become uncurable every year'.


a 1st worlder spends money on a neat new car, a 2nd home, a vacation to the bahamas, a gold necklace

I don't know about 'a 2nd home', but the fact that working class people are able to consume more and enjoy better living standards than before is a good thing. It is something which the working class has fought for. Revolutionaries have historically joined such working class struggles. Progressive anti-capitalists never denounced ordinary people for consuming 'too much', in the way that today's fashionable middle class anti-consumerists do.

That's the anti-capitalism of fools. It has nothing to do with a progressive critique of capitalist society. We join in the struggles to raise living standards for the working class; we don't tell them off for wanting to increase their consumption.


while a 3rd world person can't pay for FOOD

Global inequality is a product of the capitalist system. In order for people in the third world to have - at the bare minimum - the same living standards as us in the developed parts of the world, we need to end capitalism and bring about a kind of global economic development which we have not yet even come close to witnessing.

The kind of worldwide economic development which Western middle class Greens (hypocrites who live in conditions of material abundance) see in their worst nightmares.

The whole problem with capitalism is that it restrains the development of the productive forces of society. Once this restraint is removed, we will use unfettered human industry and ingenuity to start creating a world that's suitable for human inhabitation.


you disgust me

The thing that really disgusts you is people. You simply hate human beings. You see human beings as parasites. You see us as scum. For you, humanity is the problem rather than the solution. That's why you call for halving the world's human population. That's why you oppose increasing human consumption. That's why you see development in the third world as bad thing and you oppose 'human expansion into new areas'. Basically, that's why you're an environmentalist.

You need to realise that your views are not only deeply reactionary, they are also extremely irrational. When you start to contemplate on that fact, we can carry on our discussion. Till then, i think that you're beyond help.

[ichneumon]

can someone split and move this to a flame-allowed forum?


As of 2004, the average life expectancy in Russia was 59 years for males and 72 years for females. The biggest factor that contributes to low life expectancy is high mortality among working-age males due to preventable causes (violent crimes, traffic accidents, alcohol etc.) Some infectious diseases are also implicated, such as AIDS/HIV and tuberculosis. Both diseases became widespread in Russia in the 1990s. However, the underlying problems with healthcare in Russia pre-date the post-Soviet period. The Soviet Union had been increasingly lagging behind Western countries in terms of mortality and life expectancy since the late 1960s. By 1985, life expectancy for males was only 62.7 years in Russia, compared to 71.6 in Great Britain and 74.8 in Japan. The turmoil in the early 1990s and the economic crisis in 1998 caused life expectancy in Russia to go down while it was steadily growing in the rest of the world.

[edit] HIV/AIDS

Russia and Ukraine are said to have the highest growth rates of HIV infection in the world outside Sub-Saharan Africa. In Russia HIV seems to be transmitted mostly by intravenous drug users sharing needles, although data is very uncertain. There is evidence of growing transmission between sex workers and their clients. Data from the Federal AIDS Center shows that the number of registered cases is doubling every 12 months and by May 1, 2002 had reached 193,400 persons. When this number is adjusted to include people who have not been tested for the disease, estimates of the actual number of infected persons vary from 800,000 to 1 million.


so, is russia industrialized?


Southeast Asia -- Countries of the region have produced very mixed results. Viet Nam has been improving dramatically in health profiles and healthy life expectancy, rising to 58.2 years, while Thailand has not improved significantly over the past decade, though it is still ahead of Viet Nam at 60.2 years. Myanmar has not done very well, with a healthy life expectancy of just 52 years, substantially behind its Southeast Asian neighbors. This shows that even countries with the same levels of income can have very different healthy life expectancies.


Latin America -- Cuba has the highest healthy life expectancy in the region, at 68.4 years, near U.S. levels. It is followed by Uruguay at 67.0 years; Argentina at 66.7 years and Costa Rica at 66.7 years. Brazil is split, with a high healthy life expectancy in its southern half, and a lower one in the north. The total average is a relatively low 59.1 years, at 55.2 for men and 62.9 for female babies.

Cuba is NOT industrialized, but IS communist - gee, what does that mean? are you saying that africa doesn't MATTER?

vanguard:

Then you understand that the reason people are suffering needlessly from treatable and preventable diseases is related - first and foremost - to poverty? So it is not due to the emergence of new resistant super-bugs from hell? It is not because 'more diseases become uncurable every year'.

capitalism is the root cause of all these things. sane, humane management of health care resources could stop all of this, just like in cuba, while industrialization occurs.

noXion:

Just as an aside, the idea that not everyone can enjoy first-world (or close to) living standards is mere propaganda - used by the ruling class to justify all sorts of oppression against the developing world, as well as by primmies and Greenpeace style eco-wackjobs in order to advance their own ideologies.

bullshit. the world doesn't produce enough energy for this. it *can't*. money or greed or need doesn't turn sand into oil or uranium.


vanguard:

The thing that really disgusts you is people. You simply hate human beings. You see human beings as parasites. You see us as scum. For you, humanity is the problem rather than the solution. That's why you call for halving the world's human population. That's why you oppose increasing human consumption. That's why you see development in the third world as bad thing and you oppose 'human expansion into new areas'. Basically, that's why you're an environmentalist.

You need to realise that your views are not only deeply reactionary, they are also extremely irrational. When you start to contemplate on that fact, we can carry on our discussion. Till then, i think that you're beyond help

i see YOU as a parasite. tell me, what is your job? what do YOU do to make the world a better place for humanity? i live on the crumbling edge of poverty so i can fight the war on disease. i love humanity. you hate nature, and you can't understand that someone can love life and humanity as a part of that. you think it's mankind vs. nature, which is delusional. i want humanity to be able to survive on this world in the long run, for thousands of years. you want to destroy the planet in a mad gamble to get people to live in tin can satellites. fuck that.

and fyi, i see humanity and our technology as the next phase in gaian evolution, where the sentient world-mind will take earthseed to the dead worlds. i just don't expect it to happen soon.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by ichneumon
bullshit. the world doesn't produce enough energy for this. it *can't*. money or greed or need doesn't turn sand into oil or uranium.

The ruling class say the same thing, if only to justify their own horrifically wasteful and inefficient behaviour - you never know, with that lot gone, we might just be able to give everyone a decent lifestyle. One that includes such "luxuries" (as you seem to perceive them) as clean running water, electricity, three square meals a day, a roof over their head and worthwhile work and education.

But of course that's "atheist mythology" :rolleyes:

[ichneumon]

okay, noXion, i'm not arguing with you, i just don't understand. for me, people need food, clean, water, shelter, healthcare and access to information. people who lack these things qualify as the underclass, which is global. those are the people i fight for. "middle class" americans/europeans/japanese thus qualify as oppressors, because they have MUCH more than the bare minimum, and, realistically, much of their wealth comes from exploiting the underclass. if you are part of this 1st world society and not one of the VERY few member of the underclass that live in 1st world nations, and you don't devote your life to the struggle to change this situation, you are a blood sucking tick. how is this wrong?

the energy crisis is real. with a global government and a SERIOUS redistribution of wealth, it might be possible to have the bare minimum for all people. but that does NOT involve 1st worlders having nifty cars and fast food restaurants. and it wouldn't last - there's not enough oil, and there just can't be that many nuclear reactors - that would be insane, not to mention that nuclear reactors don't produce net gain in energy for something like 15yrs.

so, what is the supposed solution to this? how does it NOT involve reducing consumption in the 1st world? where is the energy going to come from? how is overpopulation a myth?

btw, "atheist mythology" is that garbage about moving humanity into space, or fusion reactors, or any other bit of SF.