3 ms·

Lends a whole other colour to that scene from The Matrix... Agent Smith monologuing at Morpheus bound to the chair. > Agent Smith: I’d like to share a revelati

Lends a whole other colour to that scene from The Matrix... Agent Smith monologuing at Morpheus bound to the chair. > Agent Smith: I’d like to share a revelation during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you’re 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 and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. 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. ref: "Smith Interrogates Morpheus Transcript" https://scottmanning.com/content/smith-interrogates-morpheus-transcript/ https://scottmanning.com/content/smith-interrogates-morpheus... --- Edit: Maybe it takes virulence to colonise the galaxy. A sobering thought.

Erlangen 9mo ago
> Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. Though it's an interesting quote, I have to disagree. The reindeers on St. Matthew Island continued to multiply and depleted their food resources without any predators, until an extreme snow storms struck. They don't "instinctively" develops a natural equilibrium. https://www.adn.com/features/article/what-wiped-out-st-matthew-islands-reindeer/2010/01/17/ https://www.adn.com/features/article/what-wiped-out-st-matth...
- kakacik 9mo ago
  Yeah 'instincts' are in real world just enough external pressure and death to keep the equilibrium going, whatever grisly happens behind the curtains. Hunters hunt as much as they can. Wolves regularly kill 10 or 20 sheep while eating one if they get the chance. Foxes do similar stuff with chickens. Nature is brutal and without empathy.
  - cestith 9mo ago
    Housecats let outdoors often don’t even eat what they hunt, because they have a steady supply of their favorite food in the house. They just hunt and kill because they are furry little murder machines. They really shouldn’t be let outside unsupervised.
    - embedding-shape 9mo ago
      > They really shouldn’t be let outside unsupervised. Alternatively, get them a collar with a little bell, and let them try (and always fail) to hunt.
      - cestith 9mo ago
        I guess the odd deaf squirrel wasn’t likely to last long anyway. A bell could work to keep them from stalking. They can still run, leap, and ambush. It seems a bell should at least greatly mitigate the issue. I might say usually rather than always. To be fair, though, supervision won’t stop them every time either.
        embedding-shape 9mo ago
        > They can still run, leap, and ambush. Whenever they do, there is a little tingle tingle, whatever tiny little movement they're trying to do. They end up unable to catch anything basically, I literally never witnessed one of our cats catching anything growing up, nor them bringing any "gifts".
- close04 9mo ago
  They don't develop this equilibrium "instinctively" (something exclusively inside them) but they do "naturally" (helped by the environment). Now the reindeer weren't really in their natural environment, they were put in very constrained, special conditions, with little flexibility, little time to adapt, and no ability to shape that environment. The environment forced them to adapt and lower the numbers, and eventually wiped them out with what was also probably a fluke. They were still 50% more individuals than when they arrived but no viable reproduction path ahead. This was an extreme example. Put humans on this type of island and you'll probably end up with them dying out just the same, despite our tendence to radically change the environment to survive. After all that's why the reindeer were there, so humans can survive absent a constant lifeline from civilization. Humans, and viruses to a degree, are much better at shaping their environment and adapting faster to what's thrown at them to compensate. The instinct is to change whatever possible of the surroundings to survive and thrive.
- perrygeo 9mo ago
  This. Mammals are (generally) K-selected species, meaning they invest heavily in raising their young. In the absence of natural pressures, mammals reproduce like crazy until they bump up against the environment's carrying capacity. Humans are not unique at all in our tendency to expand! It's just that we have opposable thumbs and language and tools to help us boost the carrying capacity.
notarobot123 9mo ago
I never understood where the desire to "colonise the galaxy" comes from. Why is this a desirable goal? Compared to anywhere else we know about, Earth is an extremely unique utopia. A "better" planet would be measured in how Earth-like it is - perhaps bigger or with more/different exploitable resources. The only driver that I can really comprehend is the desire for freedom and autonomy in less populated spaces. The problem with this is that the human condition follows us everywhere. We'll recreate the same problems we have here everywhere we go. We can't run away from ourselves.
- DavidPiper 9mo ago
  I don't really think about this much, but your comment made me wonder: If we do find another earth-like planet within travel distance (impossible afaik but let's suspend disbelief for a moment), how do we determine whether it's worth colonising? And how to we measure it? "The resources on this planet will last 15.6B person-years which means if we send 5 million people there over time, we will have to prepare for their evacuation in ??? years"? Obviously totally moot if Earth's resources aren't going to last that long, but just had that thought bubble up.
  - jiggawatts 9mo ago
    The "bigger problem" is that it is insufficient to observe the life carrying capacity of a planet for a few decades and conclude that it is stable long term. For example, the host star could have variability measured in thousands or millions of years that would render the planet inhospitable to humans but not the indigenous life, which would have been adapted to these cycles. Similarly, the planet could experience regular asteroid impacts due to passing through a recently broken up rock that intersects its orbital path. Some of these risks can be eliminated through careful study, but this would require something like a century of painstaking geology, thorough astronomic surveys of its neighbourhood, a full fossil record, etc...
- ZaoLahma 9mo ago
  Spread the risk and reduce the probability of extinction. We know for a fact that earth is doomed, on top of our own continuous efforts to kill ourselves off. No not recent climate change type of doomed, but the evolution of our sun is continuously pushing the habitable zone outwards. We might be able to deal with that particular annoyance by hiding underground when it becomes an emergency in half a billion years or so, but our utopia won't be as utopic anymore. Eventually however, the sun will balloon to a red giant at which point we better have a plan in place other than staying on this planet.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

Erlangen 9mo ago

> Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. Though it's an interesting quote, I have to disagree. The reindeers on St. Matthew Island continued to multiply and depleted their food resources without any predators, until an extreme snow storms struck. They don't "instinctively" develops a natural equilibrium. https://www.adn.com/features/article/what-wiped-out-st-matthew-islands-reindeer/2010/01/17/ https://www.adn.com/features/article/what-wiped-out-st-matth...

kakacik 9mo ago
Yeah 'instincts' are in real world just enough external pressure and death to keep the equilibrium going, whatever grisly happens behind the curtains. Hunters hunt as much as they can. Wolves regularly kill 10 or 20 sheep while eating one if they get the chance. Foxes do similar stuff with chickens. Nature is brutal and without empathy.
- cestith 9mo ago
  Housecats let outdoors often don’t even eat what they hunt, because they have a steady supply of their favorite food in the house. They just hunt and kill because they are furry little murder machines. They really shouldn’t be let outside unsupervised.
  - embedding-shape 9mo ago
    > They really shouldn’t be let outside unsupervised. Alternatively, get them a collar with a little bell, and let them try (and always fail) to hunt.
    - cestith 9mo ago
      I guess the odd deaf squirrel wasn’t likely to last long anyway. A bell could work to keep them from stalking. They can still run, leap, and ambush. It seems a bell should at least greatly mitigate the issue. I might say usually rather than always. To be fair, though, supervision won’t stop them every time either.
      - embedding-shape 9mo ago
        > They can still run, leap, and ambush. Whenever they do, there is a little tingle tingle, whatever tiny little movement they're trying to do. They end up unable to catch anything basically, I literally never witnessed one of our cats catching anything growing up, nor them bringing any "gifts".
close04 9mo ago
They don't develop this equilibrium "instinctively" (something exclusively inside them) but they do "naturally" (helped by the environment). Now the reindeer weren't really in their natural environment, they were put in very constrained, special conditions, with little flexibility, little time to adapt, and no ability to shape that environment. The environment forced them to adapt and lower the numbers, and eventually wiped them out with what was also probably a fluke. They were still 50% more individuals than when they arrived but no viable reproduction path ahead. This was an extreme example. Put humans on this type of island and you'll probably end up with them dying out just the same, despite our tendence to radically change the environment to survive. After all that's why the reindeer were there, so humans can survive absent a constant lifeline from civilization. Humans, and viruses to a degree, are much better at shaping their environment and adapting faster to what's thrown at them to compensate. The instinct is to change whatever possible of the surroundings to survive and thrive.
perrygeo 9mo ago
This. Mammals are (generally) K-selected species, meaning they invest heavily in raising their young. In the absence of natural pressures, mammals reproduce like crazy until they bump up against the environment's carrying capacity. Humans are not unique at all in our tendency to expand! It's just that we have opposable thumbs and language and tools to help us boost the carrying capacity.

notarobot123 9mo ago

I never understood where the desire to "colonise the galaxy" comes from. Why is this a desirable goal? Compared to anywhere else we know about, Earth is an extremely unique utopia. A "better" planet would be measured in how Earth-like it is - perhaps bigger or with more/different exploitable resources. The only driver that I can really comprehend is the desire for freedom and autonomy in less populated spaces. The problem with this is that the human condition follows us everywhere. We'll recreate the same problems we have here everywhere we go. We can't run away from ourselves.

DavidPiper 9mo ago
I don't really think about this much, but your comment made me wonder: If we do find another earth-like planet within travel distance (impossible afaik but let's suspend disbelief for a moment), how do we determine whether it's worth colonising? And how to we measure it? "The resources on this planet will last 15.6B person-years which means if we send 5 million people there over time, we will have to prepare for their evacuation in ??? years"? Obviously totally moot if Earth's resources aren't going to last that long, but just had that thought bubble up.
- jiggawatts 9mo ago
  The "bigger problem" is that it is insufficient to observe the life carrying capacity of a planet for a few decades and conclude that it is stable long term. For example, the host star could have variability measured in thousands or millions of years that would render the planet inhospitable to humans but not the indigenous life, which would have been adapted to these cycles. Similarly, the planet could experience regular asteroid impacts due to passing through a recently broken up rock that intersects its orbital path. Some of these risks can be eliminated through careful study, but this would require something like a century of painstaking geology, thorough astronomic surveys of its neighbourhood, a full fossil record, etc...
ZaoLahma 9mo ago
Spread the risk and reduce the probability of extinction. We know for a fact that earth is doomed, on top of our own continuous efforts to kill ourselves off. No not recent climate change type of doomed, but the evolution of our sun is continuously pushing the habitable zone outwards. We might be able to deal with that particular annoyance by hiding underground when it becomes an emergency in half a billion years or so, but our utopia won't be as utopic anymore. Eventually however, the sun will balloon to a red giant at which point we better have a plan in place other than staying on this planet.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]