Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[andy1005]

Viruses and bacteria as well as other lifeforms that have the potential to cause sickness and death have always plagued mankind, they are not always documented and in primitive times, it was likely often seen as a paranormal event caused by some god.

At a basic level, they are lifeforms, most evolve, most aim to achieve status within their organism, whether for destruction or for good.

However the ultimate question is: What is the ultimate purpose of an illness-inducing organism and where did they come from?

Scientists have been able to determine that the first viruses/bacteria etc came from asteroids; millions and millions of years ago along with the primordial soup for life.

However their role has never been truly determined, they have always been seen from a human standpoint as the cause of suffering, death and sorrow for all those involved with major tragedy inducing illnesses yet are they the most successful at what they do? What if the ultimate goal of any organism is to cause death to complex-cell beings like us? Some have lost their way and have become part of our body to aid us against the pure organisms but most still aim to kill life.

I believe they are part of a wider natural scheme of population control so that humans serve their place on Earth just as every other being has and that they are intended to wipe us out just as nature used a *insert disaster here* to kill off the dinosaurs once they were too proliferant. However it is human nature to battle against the odds, nature didn't intend for us to defend against it with antibiotics, anti-viral drugs and so now we are at a stalemate with nature until nature finally breaks through and wins with something immune to all of our defensive measures and spreads like wildfire.

One of life's little mysteries I suppose, what do you think?

[Angellus]

My idea of their 'big picture' = survive, expand expand expand!
My idea of our 'big picture' = they're bad, we need to get rid of them.
My idea of The 'big picture' = population control.

[redacted123]

-

[Strife26]

Basically, what you're running is the old Gaia hypothesis. The idea that the Earth itself is a system that actively pursues the status que.

 I'd argue against it. I've never seen a claim that asteroids have ever brought life to Earth (or that life can develop by itself), last time I checked, pretty much nothing can survive a hard vacuum for long, and certainly not reentry heat. The goal of almost all living things (I'll call a virus a living thing here, which may or may not be true) is to survive and reproduce. Bacteria and Viruses do this. Random generation has let many find themselves a niche (and the ones that have symbiotic natures tend to do a lot better, no?). If a pathogen was so bad that it managed to kill everyone, then it would die for lack of host.

More or less, I find the Gaia idea to be bunk.

[3]

The potential "ultimate purpose" of any lifeform is proliferation. The advantage gained via said proliferation is survival. The method is reproduction.

How anything - let alone bacteria and viruses - came to having basic survival/reproduction instincts is likely not known.

Scientists have been able to determine that the first viruses/bacteria etc came from asteroids; millions and millions of years ago along with the primordial soup for life.

"Determine"? Surely you mean "speculate"?

I believe they are part of a wider natural scheme of population control so that humans serve their place on Earth just as every other being has and that they are intended to wipe us out just as nature used a *insert disaster here* to kill off the dinosaurs once they were too proliferant. However it is human nature to battle against the odds, nature didn't intend for us to defend against it with antibiotics, anti-viral drugs and so now we are at a stalemate with nature until nature finally breaks through and wins with something immune to all of our defensive measures and spreads like wildfire.

-> Gaia hypothesis

@Strife26: Are you sure that the Gaia hypothesis suggests that potential for lifeforms was bought to Earth via asteroid? Nothing that I've read suggests that, but I'm not well-read in any regard on that subject, so I may well have easily missed something.

[chaoticag]

Well, you have to define "reason", because, when you get down to it, what is the reason for humanity's existance? To grow and expand? To love and be loved? But in this context, reason has little meaning.

In a scientific sense, there is no reason, because, so far, the existance of a supernatural entity that controls the creation of bacteria with any intelligence has neither been proven nor disproven. Therefor, for the time being at least, you cannot say that Mother Nature intended any of her creations for a higher purpose. Bacteria and Viri exist because they can, all that matters is that they spread before the host dies, and will continue to exist throug the spread. As long as it can be exploited, nature will exploit it. Period. Nature exploits the suns power and the mater present on this planet in order to continue existing. Disease is simply the result of change.

[Strife26]

I should probably have had another paragraph in there. ET life doesn't have anything to do with Gaia (and the possibility to royally screw it up).

Effectively, there are two types of Gaia theories. Weak and strong.
Weak gaia is pretty easy to demonstrate. It more or less says that organisms tend to have differing effects. Look at the daisy-world experiment. Imagine a world with only flowers. There are black flowers and white flowers. The black flowers are going to absorb heat and warm the world while white will reflect heat and cool the planet. In this system, the daisies are going to eventually get to the point where they effect the world's temperature to the point where it is optimal daisy growing levels. If the sunlight changes, the black/white ratio will change to keep it the same.
This is demonstrable, for example mammals use O2 and produce CO2 while living, Plants use CO2 and release O2. When CO2 builds up, plants do better helping keep it at a middle level. However (as human action shows) it's easy to overwhelm the system (GLOBAL WARMING AHHHHH).

Strong gaia is quite different. Think of it as FF7 gaia. If you take a big sword and stab the planet, it's going to sick giant monsters on you. The OP, instead of WEAPON, took pathogens to be the tool for the planet to cull disruptive species, but I'd argue against this.

[Angellus]

Basically, what you're running is the old Gaia hypothesis. The idea that the Earth itself is a system that actively pursues the status que.

 I'd argue against it. I've never seen a claim that asteroids have ever brought life to Earth (or that life can develop by itself), last time I checked, pretty much nothing can survive a hard vacuum for long, and certainly not reentry heat. The goal of almost all living things (I'll call a virus a living thing here, which may or may not be true) is to survive and reproduce. Bacteria and Viruses do this. Random generation has let many find themselves a niche (and the ones that have symbiotic natures tend to do a lot better, no?). If a pathogen was so bad that it managed to kill everyone, then it would die for lack of host.

More or less, I find the Gaia idea to be bunk.

If the asteroid is large enough and hollow to an extend, then it is possible.

[Cthulhu]

Isn't this the same guy who said the world was going to end because we haven't seen time travelers yet?

why you do this desu

[3]

Yes, it is.

And if this was on any forum other than this one, I'd call troll.

[Duke 2.0]

 I was under the assumption that viruses were just bits of existing multicellular organisms that were basically cancer: It's them, but the cells are different. They don't work the same.

 Fungi, bacteria and other microorganisms are just other organisms. They see food, they eat food. Other organisms are made of food particles. We are made of food to something.

 As far as roles go, over the years that life has existed we have evolved into niches of sustenance. We gravitate into systems that allow populations to remain relatively stable. To that extent every organism in the system has a purpose to keep the system going. So what does virii and microorganisms have to do with it?
 Being parasites, the factors are a little different from other organisms. They need to absorb nutrients from their hosts and survive whatever immune system the host has, as well as not be too successful as to wipe out the host population. to that extent they serve no purpose to the community other than population control, and even then it is a contribution that generally is not needed for a niche. That is, unless it is a host population that is only kept in check by disease.

 Welcome to Biology.

[userpay]

I seem to recall an experiment involving bacteria (or something of that nature) exposer to space. There was one or two that went into a hibernation state and were succefully revived. So theoreticly bacteria from space is possible but when you factor in entry heat it pretty much falls flat on its face.

[Strife26]

Basically, what you're running is the old Gaia hypothesis. The idea that the Earth itself is a system that actively pursues the status que.

 I'd argue against it. I've never seen a claim that asteroids have ever brought life to Earth (or that life can develop by itself), last time I checked, pretty much nothing can survive a hard vacuum for long, and certainly not reentry heat. The goal of almost all living things (I'll call a virus a living thing here, which may or may not be true) is to survive and reproduce. Bacteria and Viruses do this. Random generation has let many find themselves a niche (and the ones that have symbiotic natures tend to do a lot better, no?). If a pathogen was so bad that it managed to kill everyone, then it would die for lack of host.

More or less, I find the Gaia idea to be bunk.

If the asteroid is large enough and hollow to an extend, then it is possible.

Not really, if you're talking about a chunk of rock big enough to shield internal life from the heat (especially the heat of impact), then you're getting into world destroying territory.

[Kagus]

And if this was on any forum other than this one, I'd call troll.

Is there some reason for not doing that here?  We deal with goblins often enough, why not trolls?

On a more serious note,  viruses do not cause illness for the sake of it...  They infiltrate a host, then tweak the host's healthy, living cells in order to make more of the virus.  It is reproduction, pure and simple.  Unlike a bacteria, viruses are incapable of reproducing without turning other cells into a "factory".

Most of the harsh effects we encounter while ill are actually results of the body fighting the virus.  If we didn't attack them so heavily, we wouldn't notice much of anything until the virus had managed to spread far enough to induce noticeable cell death.

Viruses that are 'too good' at infecting and reproducing end up burning out when all their hosts die and are incapable of spreading the virus to other, healthy hosts.  This isn't some biological weapon, it's just a living* being doing what it does best, making more of itself.  This one just happens to have some nasty side effects from time to time.

*(As to the living/unliving nature of viruses, I don't know if anyone's entirely sure of that.  I think they qualify as at least a semi-living creature)

Bacteria, on the other hand, don't really need us, they just need an environment where they can reproduce and be awesome.  Bacteria have inputs, outputs, and their efficiency is altered by outside conditions.  That's it.

In some cases, those inputs/outputs aren't particularly pleasant if they set up a colony somewhere in a person's body.  Other times, they can be damn near fatal.  But we all have certain bacterial colonies that we really wouldn't want to live without.  Namely, the various types of gut flora.

When you lay down some serious turdage, consider this...  Roughly 98%* of it is actually bacteria poo.  The other 2% is what your body managed to contribute.  Be proud man, be proud.

*(WARNING: Unverified statistic that was remembered from somewhere.  I'd make some comment about pulling it out of my ass, but considering the context, I figured that would be just a wee bit too much)

Those bacteria are essential to our digestive cycle.  They input compounds that we can't do much of anything with, and output stuff that gets sucked up yummy-yummy by our intestinal wall.  Our bodies don't have the resources to do it, so we have to let bacterial immigrants handle the shit jobs.

Sometimes the good flora starts dropping in numbers, and the evil neighbor comes in for a visit and starts making sweet microscopic love.  Yeah, take it all, baby.

This results in a bacteria that inputs stuff readily available to the area, but outputs a waste product that we can't do anything with.  And that, children, is how Diarrhea is born.

Taking yoghurt or some other type of culture will help restock your good gut flora to the point that it edges out the bad guys.  Survival of the numerous.  This is a classic symbiotic relationship, we provide food and shelter for lots of tiny things we can't see, and in return they crap nutrients.  Ain't life magical?


Ahh, bacteria...  Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.  And so, kiddies, we come back to the point that we're not in a war with other organisms...  We're all just trying to get along and get it on.  Some of us just happen to use others as a stepping stone, and aren't too polite about it.

Also, bacteria are especially awesome since they can be genetically reprogrammed with new inputs and outputs.  This has resulted in quite a few "biological factories" where bacterial cultures can produce compounds we'd like to have.  Which is just cool.


_{DISCLAIMER:  I'm not 100% sure about some of the items presented in this post.  If I got something wrong, please provide a summary of the discrepancy and possibly a link to an article or whatnot where I can research it further.  Thank you.}

[Footkerchief]

I was under the assumption that viruses were just bits of existing multicellular organisms that were basically cancer: It's them, but the cells are different. They don't work the same.

Are you talking about what Wikipedia calls the cellular origin hypothesis, or something else?