4 ms·
I am more and more convinced that the separation into different living beings is somewhat artificial. If there are multicellular organisms, then an ecosystem as
by 9dev 5mo ago
I am more and more convinced that the separation into different living beings is somewhat artificial. If there are multicellular organisms, then an ecosystem as a whole can also be considered a life form.
- ngruhn 5mo agoMaybe a key distinction is collaboration vs. competition. The more collaboration between individual "units" (e.g. cells in a multicellular organism or organisms in an ecosystem) the more they behave like a single thing. Ant colonies are also a strong example.
- a115ltd 5mo agoTo an extent, yes. I'd say the difference is government systems. A single organism, or something like the human body, has more evolved, more sophisticated government mechanisms. The body is mostly a cooperative civilisation of cells. Of course, there's still natural competition among them, in many shapes and forms. The cells are held together in a coherent, agile, resilient organism by governance systems strong enough to keep internal Darwinism from becoming civil war.
- chongli 5mo agoCollaboration and competition are simultaneous. Just look at humans working in an office!
- delusional 5mo agoThis isn't really a new thought. It's exactly what's meant by terms such as "circle of life" or "ecosystem". The separation of individual beings is entirely artificial, or if your being more charitable and technical, analytical and descriptive. Science is not reality. We abstract reality to make nice and useful models. Reality violates our models constantly.
- 9dev 5mo agoDidn’t claim it was. It’s just something difficult to really accept, at least to me, inhabiting a body that definitely feels very distinct from my environment.
- Jedd 5mo agoGaia theory - James Lovelock. You find it difficult to accept, or is it just your brain that finds it difficult to accept?
- delusional 5mo ago> Didn’t claim it was I was afraid that would happen. My comment was really more aimed at being a comment to yours, than a reply. The fact that you're starting to "feel" this as being more true is not negated or impacted by it being an existing thought. Thoughts like this take time to settle into experienced truth, and i appreciate that. Had we been conversing that would have been a non-sequitur, and i would not have made it. One of the problems with comment systems though is that we are at once conversing and broadcasting. The comment was more intended on being a broadcast than a direct reply to you, as a breadcrumb for anyone interested in the path you were taking to maybe seek it out in existing literature.
- andsoitis 5mo agoComment system dynamics are partly to blame, but I would add that human nature incentivizes defensiveness. Once one mostly outgrows it, things are much easier and less tense. Even if a discussion dynamic increases the probability for defensiveness. Ego is the enemy.
- keybored 5mo agoI don’t understand all this thinking when some minor editing would have made confusion much less likely. > > This isn't really a new thought. Dropping this still leaves the whole intended meaning of the comment intact. That it isn’t a “new thought” is clearly inferred by “meant to terms like”. Or even just dropping “really”, which in this case looks like a discourse marker.