How do you define a virus? I don’t have a clear definition in mind, but I don’t think viruses are conscious so they wouldn’t be thinking about what they should do.

viruses have a goal and that is living within a host, using it's resources to advance their technology. That technology is then used to infest other organisms (planets). If a virus can't infest another organism, it would only require one extinction event to end humanity.

Can we choose not to be a virus? In other words: can we choose not to fulfil that definition of a virus?

What should we do now, that we know we're the viruses? — Yozhura

We're not viruses, we're mammals. But your thrust is rather that we are pathogens to our environment. This is a fairly common occurrence, and there is an evolutionary pressure on pathogens to minimise the harm they do, and towards a symbiotic relationship. This is fairly easy to understand; If Dutch Elm Disease kills all the elm trees, it will kill itself. It might manage to jump species, but if it does the same thing again, it will have the same effect in the new environment.

So finding another planet to destroy is not a solution for humans. There is only learning to be a benign part of a balanced ecosystem, or face extinction. There are any number of folks will tell you something different, because this is an unpalatable truth, and there is a large market for comfortable lies. This only makes extinction the more likely.

That is a good question.

This question is fascinating, because it depends on your basic knowledge on the subjects. There is no correct answer to, what should be done in a situation where this was the case? I tried to get the saying out by using common terms, that are used these days like a virus. Provoking you to think of us humans as a single thing inhabiting this planet and consuming it on it's way.

Provoking you to think of us humans as a single thing inhabiting this planet and consuming it on it's way. — Yozhura

Yes. are you familiar with Eco-philosophy at all? There is quite a lot of work been done over many years. Arne Naess is probably a good place to start.

Consider that there is no fixed human nature, and thus no fixed place in or relation to any ecosystem. Rather our nature is mainly conditioned by thought and by culture.

No, i'm not familiar with eco-philosophy, will have to check that out.

Consider that there is no fixed human nature — unenlightened

We have become independent as we've evolved through time. We used to need others, but now, you're being used. Should we act more as a single entity, or divide our forces, which promotes competition and that makes evolution faster.

We have become independent as we've evolved through time. — Yozhura

I really don't think so. Oxygen breathers depend on oxygen producers - animals depend on plants. Ecological studies show how very very dependent we are on the diversity of the environment, from the insects that pollinate our crops, the crops themselves, to the various predators that control other populations, the bacteria and fungi that breakdown organic matter and so on.

Should we act more as a single entity, — Yozhura

Don't believe the nonsense about rational self-interested man. Overwhelmingly, we cooperate; we stop at the stop signs we work for each other, other people build our homes and our machines and grow and cook our food and fix our teeth; most of us would not last a week without the assistance of a vast network of cooperating social relations.

So neither biologically, nor socially, nor even psychologically are we remotely independent. (I didn't work this out on my own.)

Mr Smith agrees. :)

Agent Smith - Humans Are Virus (1m:18s youtube)