Another hypothetical - Cancer compared to people

after reading my own post I realized how anti-human it was; I am not really anti humanity but the similar characteristics are interesting.

There can never be an absolutely perfect analogy between two drastically different things, especially when the analogy is vague and incomplete. Mikedurland, you need to scrutinize things scientifically, with specifics, instead of drawing vague analogies like this. I blaim religion for your lack of thinking about the specifics. The world can't get cancer since it is not alive but people can get cancer, the world can't die but people (and cancer) can die if they don't have resources to consume. However, even at that, people and cancer require drastically different sorts of resources in order to function the way they each do, have significantly different lifespans, grow at different rates (years versus weeks), have different kinds of mechanisms for reproduction, cancer isn't intelligent yet people are, etc.

I agree that it is a vague analogy (off the top of my head, just for conversation) but...

your statement : "I blaim religion for your lack of thinking about the specifics."
where did that come from? The top of your head?

What religion? Like in general (all religions)?

>I actually would argue that the earth is similar to a life form. Most people would consider Mars to be a "dead" planet and Earth as "alive".

>I am still not convinced that people are Intelligent, and cancer cell are not.

>cancer cells live off the same "food" as a person does

>people may reproduce differently but they grow the same.

But that's more "Vague analogies" so I guess I shouldn't utter such things according to you.

How dare I engage in conversation. It must be that dam religion!

What you really mean to ask is whether humankind is destroying the local and global ecosystems of the Earth by way of wasteful consumption/disposal practices, population overgrowth, city expansion, deforestation, mineral mining/processing, farmland overfirtilization runoff into streams and lakes, raw sewage disposal, and chemical manufacturing methods, etc?

Simple answer, yes, but I don't know to what extent we're necessarily destroying those ecosystems. Everything comes down to a rates game, in this case it's all about the rate at which life is being erradicated vs the rate that life is changing and adapting with the environment. I seriously doubt that it's possible to destroy every living creature on Earth, and I'll bet that some ecosystems naturally handle some environmental pollution processes better than other ecosystems. I believe, hower, the key to human survival is to take care of the Earth, although bacteria and insects don't care if we die out. A more nature friendly solution to global business is the route to go, but there so many specific nuances involved in such a transition that I don't even know where to begin with, much less does the government know how to do it properly either.

Nope, that is not what I meant to ask.

I am interested in similar characteristics of seemingly unrelated things.

I am not trying to promote some environmentalist agenda as you assume.

I didn’t go into too much detail in my original post because I wanted to leave some room for conversation.

People are not similar to Cancer Cells nor are they a type of cancer Mike, two entirely different entities with entirely different physical characteristics and parameters. Cancer is cancer and humans are humans, that's the end of this stupid conversation I hope.

Well it definitely ends any conversation with you flux