What do you think of this?

[x42bn6]

"Agent Smith tells Morpheus, "I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I’ve realized that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus." This is perhaps the most telling line in the first film. At this point the story line presents a comment on the audience: we, the human species, do not behave like ordinary mammals, and so we could permanently lose our place in nature. Instead of inhabiting the natural world, we infest it, like a plague."

Source

I've come to this conclusion myself many times in discussions with some of my 'smarter' friends. What do you think?

Of course we are parasites. But since perpetual energy is impossible, all living beings are parasites. But humans are the worst kind.*

 

[Galatia]

I totally agree with Raccoon. It is indeed the most telling line of the whole Trilogy. Humans are inclined to behave like viruses but this doesnt mean that we dont have the choice to avoid it. But its not easy. And the movie is quite clear about who can escape the virus inclination: The *hackers*. Those who keep questioning the Matrix

 

[N[U]TS]

... The Puritans were the ones in England who stayed to try to "purify" the Church of England. If you're thinking about the Anglicans who moved to Jamestown and to look for gold, but found none and eventually moved on to cash crops, then I guess you'd say you're right.

The Puritans who left for the New World, were called the "Separatists, The Scrooby Group, or the Pilgrims." The main reason they moved is because in Holland, their children were adapting and accepting the other religious beliefs and morals found there, and they did not like that. Then they asked the VA Company if they could move there and got the OK, but landed in Cape Cod.

The Puritans were a group of people who grew discontent in the Church of England and worked towards religious, moral and societal reforms. The writings and ideas of John Calvin, a leader in the Reformation, gave rise to Protestantism and were pivotal to the Christian revolt. They contended that The Church of England had become a product of political struggles and man-made doctrines. The Puritans were one branch of dissenters who decided that the Church of England was beyond reform. Escaping persecution from church leadership and the King, they came to America.

link
http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/puritans.html

 

[TrongaMonga]

Anglicanism is the official religion of the UK, so, they weren't the ones who went to Jamestown as you said. Puritans were.

Of course we are parasites. But since perpetual energy is impossible, all living beings are parasites. But humans are the worst kind.*

No, most living beings live in a symbiosis with their environment. They renovate what they consume.

We do not.

And, yes, I've heard about Easter Island. I don't recall the name for that kind of extinction, but it has happened. But there are other forms of extinction caused by ourselves, like wars, and Earth itself.

Either way, it is true that we use the environment and do not renew it, but we are learning. The ammount of used/renewed raw materials is smaller now than during the first and second Industrial Ages, I think.

Now, ambientalists are rising and gaining more power everyday. And then came the Kyoto treaty, signed and complied by lots of countrys.

Now I could say how the US, the most poluted country in the whole world, didn't give a shit, but the topic isn't about it.

Please see; World War I, World War II, Slavery, Cuban Missle Crisis, Canada, Gulf War and The Korean War for reasons why we abused our free thought.

Ahaha. Despite the existance of much more important proof of our parasite status (like Tchernobyl), that was funny.

 

[DB]

Anglicanism is the official religion of the UK, so, they weren't the ones who went to Jamestown as you said. Puritans were.

It's a shame they were, and just because it became the official relgion of the UK doesn't mean they weren't the ones in Jamestown, moron.

" The first European (although this is disputed) to set forth, and spread the European ideas, in the New World was Christopher Columbus in 1492. Later, in 1607, Captain John Smith and one hundred and four adventurous men and women established the first permanent colony at Jamestown, Virginia in the name of England.[11] These first colonists were members of the Anglican Church of England, and wanted to maintain this as the established church, as did North and South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland and New York."

-http://www.geocities.com/ldjandl/thesis/articles_dobbs_freedomofreligion.html

Yeah, stfu Tronga.





And in regards to NTS post.

" The most obvious difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans is that the Puritans had no intention of breaking with the Anglican church. "

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/PURITAN/purhist.html

Anyways, the Puritans would later move on to Massachusetts Bay Colony, however there was no tobacco farming there, so if that's what you meant, you were incorrect about that detail.

 

[usedname]

Its astounding how much this topic as disgressed. Anyway, back to the original point.

I'd like to point out that all human societies that failed have lived in equilibrium with their environment. The folks on Easter Island, the Anasazi, the Norse in Greenland and Iceland, the Mayan, etc...

Those societies, which have all collapsed, didn't do so out of outbreeding what the environment had to offer. The sotry generaly follow the same patern:

1- The group thrive and multiply for a reason or another
2- They reach a critical point where they stop breeding, and actualy live in "harmony" with nature. Every societies mentioned above were able to do this. Heck, even modern Western societies were able to do this. Do we talk about overpopulation in Europe in North America, or Russia or Japan? I think not. This contradict what Mr. Smith believe.
3- Extinction happen after an ecological collapse. This ecological collapse is the starting point for a serie of events that generaly lead the society to die off.
4- This collapse is rarely man-made. Ressources can sudently become scarce after a suddent and unforseen climat change, like after an earthquake, a flood, a volcano eruption... peak oil? It may also be man-made, of course, but generaly out of ignorance, not because of an instinctual and irrevocable need for humans to spread. A great exemple is the Norse and the Eastern Island folks. They both had reached the critical population point, able to live in Harmony with their environment. But because they didn't understood how the environment worked, what were the differences with their homeland (because those people were settlers), ecological collapse happened.
5- After an ecological collapse, economical problems happens. People starve, witness a drop in their standards of living, revolt, civil war follow, and the remaining people either leave, or get exterminated by a stronger competitor. For exemple, the Eastern Island people runned out of trees, the Norses drained the nutriments of the soil because of unadapted agricultural practices (which worked in Norway, but not in Iceland and Greenland), the Mayans suffered droughts and certain anasazi tribes... well, I forgot about them. But the point is, running our of food or destroying the environment never actualy killed any societies. What killed them their unhability to adjust themselves after an ecological/economical collapse, either because of a civil war, a stronger ennemy, or both, usualy.

Therefore, would this all be a game, it would be better to bet on our ability to raise again after the proverbial storm, not to dodge it. Think of Peak Oil, or the increasingly hollowed out American economy, or the dangerously precarious state of our Planet's environemnt. What would matter for continuity is our ability to adjust ourselves and endure, not to prevent problems. Resiliance own vigiliance.

So, in conclusion, ask yourselves, not if our society is capable of changing its habits, but if our society is capable of adjustments. Just think of the Depression, in the 30s, if it happened again. How would the population react with this mass poverty? I say multiculturalisme would go to hell, our ethnic minorities would eventualy radicalize themselves, Society would become balkanized, and social cohesion would go out the window, and civil war might follow. But thats just my crazy personal fantasme.

====

On the Matrix, what Smith said doesn't have to be true. He merely represent a point of view, which is determinism. He believe we're determined to do this or that, to obey or fail, to breed like virus and face extinction. In other words, according to Smith, Humanity's destiny is determined by our nature and our purpose, our "raison d'être", which would apparently be incompatible with what this Planet as to offer. But in reality, its much more nuanced that this. Societies fail or survive for many other reason that this, may they be imagined (ideological failiur) or very real (a f.ucking asteroid).

 

[Jimbo]

Raccoon, we, as humans use up more recources then most other mammals.Actually, i think we use the most.Therefore, we use the recources before they replenish.

That's the logical answer, we are not a virus, we are humans.

edit- and used name, I pretty much agree with you.

 

[Ntrik_]

Its astounding how much this topic as disgressed. Anyway, back to the original point.

I'd like to point out that all human societies that failed have lived in equilibrium with their environment. The folks on Easter Island, the Anasazi, the Norse in Greenland and Iceland, the Mayan, etc...

Those societies, which have all collapsed, didn't do so out of outbreeding what the environment had to offer. The sotry generaly follow the same patern:

1- The group thrive and multiply for a reason or another
2- They reach a critical point where they stop breeding, and actualy live in "harmony" with nature. Every societies mentioned above were able to do this. Heck, even modern Western societies were able to do this. Do we talk about overpopulation in Europe in North America, or Russia or Japan? I think not. This contradict what Mr. Smith believe.
3- Extinction happen after an ecological collapse. This ecological collapse is the starting point for a serie of events that generaly lead the society to die off.
4- This collapse is rarely man-made. Ressources can sudently become scarce after a suddent and unforseen climat change, like after an earthquake, a flood, a volcano eruption... peak oil? It may also be man-made, of course, but generaly out of ignorance, not because of an instinctual and irrevocable need for humans to spread. A great exemple is the Norse and the Eastern Island folks. They both had reached the critical population point, able to live in Harmony with their environment. But because they didn't understood how the environment worked, what were the differences with their homeland (because those people were settlers), ecological collapse happened.
5- After an ecological collapse, economical problems happens. People starve, witness a drop in their standards of living, revolt, civil war follow, and the remaining people either leave, or get exterminated by a stronger competitor. For exemple, the Eastern Island people runned out of trees, the Norses drained the nutriments of the soil because of unadapted agricultural practices (which worked in Norway, but not in Iceland and Greenland), the Mayans suffered droughts and certain anasazi tribes... well, I forgot about them. But the point is, running our of food or destroying the environment never actualy killed any societies. What killed them their unhability to adjust themselves after an ecological/economical collapse, either because of a civil war, a stronger ennemy, or both, usualy.

Therefore, would this all be a game, it would be better to bet on our ability to raise again after the proverbial storm, not to dodge it. Think of Peak Oil, or the increasingly hollowed out American economy, or the dangerously precarious state of our Planet's environemnt. What would matter for continuity is our ability to adjust ourselves and endure, not to prevent problems. Resiliance own vigiliance.

So, in conclusion, ask yourselves, not if our society is capable of changing its habits, but if our society is capable of adjustments. Just think of the Depression, in the 30s, if it happened again. How would the population react with this mass poverty? I say multiculturalisme would go to hell, our ethnic minorities would eventualy radicalize themselves, Society would become balkanized, and social cohesion would go out the window, and civil war might follow. But thats just my crazy personal fantasme.

====

On the Matrix, what Smith said doesn't have to be true. He merely represent a point of view, which is determinism. He believe we're determined to do this or that, to obey or fail, to breed like virus and face extinction. In other words, according to Smith, Humanity's destiny is determined by our nature and our purpose, our "raison d'être", which would apparently be incompatible with what this Planet as to offer. But in reality, its much more nuanced that this. Societies fail or survive for many other reason that this, may they be imagined (ideological failiur) or very real (a f.ucking asteroid).

Even though I agree with you, if wars are to happen in 21st century, wouldn't it become Nuclear Warfare? (polluting the earth so bad, there wouldn't be any survivors after 50 years or so?)

Well, things are bound to happen, we've probly gone over the carrying capacity of th earth, stuffs like epidemic diseases are bound to happen any time soon (it's few years overdue actually... supposedly such diseases happen once every 75 years)

 

[Galatia]

He believe we're determined to do this or that, to obey or fail, to breed like virus and face extinction.

Agent Smith says nothing about the extinction of the human race. On the contrary. He says that humans make everything else extinct, while they keep surviving by making all the necessary adjustments.

The human race is not prone to become extinct. Different civilizations (like the Mayas, the Babylonians etc.) collapse during the passing of ages, but the human race is now reaching the 7 billion people point. The human *virus* is in a great shape, unlike the planet it is spreading on...

 

[usedname]

Indeed Galatia. But there is a fundamental parallel that must be drawn, between every extinct societies I mentioned, and our globalised world:just like the Mayan society, or the people on Easter Island, we have nowhere else now. What we have, is everything, the world is finite. There's nothing else, so if we screw up, that'l be the end of it. No other societies are going to pick up on some other continent.

The race may never become completly extinct, however. Aren't there still mayans and anasazies hanging around? Why yes. But they will never be able to rebuild coherant societies, for they have missed their chance. And since Western culture as become increasingly lax, vague, multi-ethnic and loose since 1945, if it falls, who's going to rebuild it? With what cultural principle, philosophical values or ideologies could you unite our civilisation, if it decent into chaos, into a new dark age?

 

[please help me :(]

yup.. humans are filthy creatures.

 

[AZN_FLEA]

its too late for humans. im absolutely sure we are gonna die or raher the earth is gonna die. we might find some way to survive but i doubt it. when we had a much smaller population resources could be replenished but because of the massively overpopulated state of the earth i dont think the earth can ever go back to the way it was unless about 80% of the humans die. and if they do die then we will have to change our lifestyle because the lifestyle we have puts alot of pressure on resources.


the only unexploited place on earth is the poles and if we happen to exploit it then we are so ****ed.

 

[Trojan]

Umm... The lifestyle we have pushes the resources because we are over populated... If we had less population the resources would last much longer than they are now.

 

[N[U]TS]

And in regards to NTS post.

" The most obvious difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans is that the Puritans had no intention of breaking with the Anglican church. "

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/PURITAN/purhist.html

Anyways, the Puritans would later move on to Massachusetts Bay Colony, however there was no tobacco farming there, so if that's what you meant, you were incorrect about that detail.

damit quit assuming things....the point i was making was that we expanded to the "new world" not for religious purposes but for economic reasons gold, land, and other natrual resources.

 

[DB]

damit quit assuming things....the point i was making was that we expanded to the "new world" not for religious purposes but for economic reasons gold, land, and other natrual resources.

Not for religious purposes? Then why was Pennsylvania established? What about Rhode Island and Maryland?

 

[AZN_FLEA]

the african tribes were the only ppl in the world that used the resources conservatively. the rest of the world would have exploited it.

 

[Makaveli313]

The human capacity for making other species go extinct makes us look like a virus imo

I read something about when human's (ancestors to indians) came to America thousands of years ago... It was a neat article.. Anyways, when humans start appearing in the fossil record in America, their appearance is followed by the extinction of the large mammals, such as mammoths, giant bison, etc. Virtually all the really large things that were around became extinct. :shoot

The people that came over were big game hunters... we have found tons of projectile points associated with the fossils. Therefore, the animals more or less were hunted to extinction by people that didn't know any better. (Me hungry.. me kill big things.. they ez to hunt not run like rabbit.. lots of food) I don't think it was totally the fault of humans that the animals became extinct. The climate was becoming warmer which probably added more pressure to the animals, but still...

We also killed off the passenger pigeon in the early 20th century, due to OVER hunting and clearing their habitat for our agriculture. At one time it was the most numerous bird in the world (population estimates from the 19th century ranged from 1 billion to close to 4 billion)

Then there is the current situation with mountain gorillas.. they'll be going extinct probably in the next decade or so. Loss of habitat is a big thing for a lot of animals. Then, there are the numerous deforestations of our rain forests going on around the world... who know's what all we're killing off so we can have farm land or paper...

 

[Deanoz]

It was a way to manipulate Morpheus, which failed miserably.

I think if 'humans' are a virus, then they all serve the same, and only those purposes. Essentially we have a choice as to how we act.

Viruses aren't alive or dead though. And furthermore, not all of the technical information presented was true in my eyes.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Viruses aren't alive or dead though.

as defined by humans.

 

[Dw-Riot]

Nothing seperates us from animals other than our free will and the ability to make concious decisions about love and hate. We are adaptable and flourishing in our current state. This does not make us a textbook definition of a virus. Read up on it. We are by definition, erect mammals.


From the "outside the box" perception, we are like a virus. Agent Smith describes it very well...but that is simply by our actions, not our physical being.