Is the human race a virus?

dclements

In the 2014 movie "The Kingsmen", Samuel Jackson's plays an evil villain who is trying to wipe out a large part of the human race by using some kind of mind control device installed on free cell phones he is giving away which induces a psychotic rage in almost listener who is nearby and hears it. The reasoning behind his 'evil' plan is that the human race is acting like a virus or bacteria to the earth and "global warming" is part of the earth's response to the actions of our invasive species.

I'm not one is really believes all the global warming/green peace hype (partly because I remember being told by people with similar views as a kid that we would run out of oil before 2020), but the idea of the human race being an invasive species is not exactly a new idea. Some historians believe that the 'black plague' was a 'good thing' in the context of the human race because overpopulation would have lead to an increase of massive starvation and wars if the disease didn't curtail the population before hand; although the redistribution of wealth and social changes had some addition benefits as well which may not have happened if there wasn't a plague.

Also there seems to be a common notion that 'nature' automatically deals with 'invasive species' / problems which allows individual species (and members of it) to just "do what they do" without them being able to undermine the balance of the entire system. In reality, the mere existence of viruses begs the question as to whether there is such 'balance' to begin with since virus a merely the result of broken pieces of DNA/RNA code that have gone hay-wired and have somehow managed to self replicate itself even though it itself is not alive nor serves any purpose than being replicated over and over again.

Because we are human beings and perhaps because we are the only sentient race we know of, we assume that it is a given that the human race is 'good' but if our behavior isn't that different to viruses and or invasive species should that lead us to reconsider the notion that it is a given that our race is 'good'?

Myttenar

Not a virus but similar in reproductive methodology which overpopulates and either spreads to a new area or dies with the host they devour.

Aurora

I think that human idiocy is a virus. It's called HIV - Human Idiocy Virus.

Nothing wrong with humans reproducing as long as they produce quality offspring :)

dclements

↪Myttenar

It sounds like you are saying it is more like a parasite than a virus, but to me that is not that much a difference to split hairs about which the human race is more similar to.

dclements

↪Aurora

I'm unsure how a virus or parasite that produces more resilient offspring make it any better than those that do not. Maybe you are thinking of something different when you mention "quality" offspring than what I think you are thinking of.

Aurora

I'm unsure how a virus or parasite that produces more resilient offspring make it any better than those that do not. Maybe you are thinking of something different when you mention "quality" offspring than what I think you are thinking of. — dclements

Yes, by "quality offspring", I just meant children that aren't as stupid as the parents. Not "resilient", just not as stupid as their parents.

Of course, that is a fantasy, to put it quite mildly. As you pointed out, crappy parents can't magically produce quality offspring. In fact, generations are only getting more and more stupid over time. Thanks to things like Facebook, Twitter, and smart phones, that graph resembles an exponential curve.

What I said was really just an expression of sarcasm. I hold no hope for this human race ... none.

Myttenar

↪dclements

Scientific classification is mammal but humans are a little different than most mammals, though I'm no biologist..

Cavacava

↪dclements

Because we are human beings and perhaps because we are the only sentient race we know of, we assume that it is a given that the human race is 'good' but if our behavior isn't that different to viruses and or invasive species should that lead us to reconsider the notion that it is a given that our race is 'good'?

Nature and Life seems to be pragmatically inclined, is this what you mean by "good", I am assuming that we cannot ascribe any moral value to nature or life as such.

dclements

Nature and Life seems to be pragmatically inclined, is this what you mean by "good", I am assuming that we cannot ascribe any moral value to nature or life as such. — Cavacava

"The highway to hell is built on good intentions" - Proverb

"We do what we do because that is the way that we do it" , doing that which may be "pragmatic" (ie. that which seems most useful action at the time that we do it) sometimes may be the same thing as that which is objectively good (ie that which is ultimately the best action or actions in the end) but it is almost never a given that they are the same thing.

We can ascribe "good"/"evil" to events in nature,behavior of animals, and/or natural processes but since these things are not considered to be sentient the same way that we are sentient, it is often considered foolish to think they always have the same faculty to make the same choices as we do.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that although we have more resources at our disposes than animals and natural processes we are very often at the mercy of fate as to whether we ultimately cause 'good' or 'evil' (even if we try to be pragmatic most of the time) and therefore it isn't a given that actions may not be any better than a viruses actions on it's host.

gurugeorge

↪dclements

That would presuppose a standard for "good" that's outside what's good for humans. But that would only be a standard chosen by some humans (e.g. nature loving humans).

Generally speaking, "good" is a relative term. What's good for a virus isn't good for humans, and vice-versa. But it's also objective in another sense, in that what's good for humans is objectively good for humans and objectively bad for viruses, and vice-versa.

So the situation is like this: morally good is what's objectively good for human flourishing, it's quite a limited concept, not a "cosmic" concept. Human flourishing may be objectively bad for some other creatures, but that doesn't mean it's morally bad, not until it gets to the point where it impacts human flourishing.

And that has a sliding scale from discomfort to outright impoverishment, which is why we listen to nature lovers' complaints. Their complaint might be something that's only making them, personally, uncomfortable, in which case it's not really a moral problem, even if they pose it that way; but it might be something that portends a larger problem for human flourishing in general, in which case it does become a moral problem.

So for example, a human liking for certain types of finches and discomfort at their disappearance isn't yet showing up a moral problem; but if human beings were to foul their own nest to the extent of something like, say, those envisioned s-f dystopias that picture an entire planet as given over to industry, with a polluted atmosphere, etc., etc., then that would be a moral problem. In that case, it would also be true to say that, objectively speaking, we'd turned out to be like a virus for other forms of life, but the moral aspect of it would only be in the aspect that affects us and our own flourishing.

Is the human race a virus?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions