Yeah, so I've seen far too many one-word posts with no explanations here. Start explaining why you think your choice is man's worst enemy. Failure to do so will result in spam.
Man's greatest enemy are the Great Old Ones for when the stars align next there is no way in hell that Cthulhu is going to let some damn sailors take him out again.
BTW-I think that Yog-Sothoth and Nyarlathotop are very likely the most entertaining words/names to say out loud in any language.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"But then are we most in order when we are most out of order."-Jack Cade
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
@Yarg: Malevolence has absolutely nothing to do with it. What you have to understand is that Viruses and Bacteria, more so viruses in general, actively attempt to destroy you, and we fight back through evolutionary defenses. The entire concept and structure of a virus serves simply to, ideally, end in the extermination of all life on the planet, if left unchecked. Thankfully evolution is quite a useful asset which has allowed us to nullify certain strains, but that does not eliminate the threat. Nothing else so actively pursues our destruction as viruses, not that we know of.
This is blatantly untrue. Viruses are not out to destroy people, because that is completely against their best interests.
The fact is, viruses need hosts in order to survive. If they wipe out the human race, they can no longer reproduce.
This has been shown experimentally. In Australia, as you may know, rabbits are a huge pest problem. To try and curb the rabbit population, they introduced an extremely virulent strain of a particular rabbit-infecting virus. Upon introduction to the population, the virus killed 99% of lab rabbits within the first week. Since this virus bound to a receptor not found in most domestic animals or in humans, it was thought to be a very effective pest control measure.
So what happened? Within 10 years, two things happened. First, the rabbits evolved resistance to this strain of the virus. This was expected, and not a surprise. However, the virus had also decreased in lethality. Whereas before it killed 99% of the lab rabbits within the first week, which had not evolved resistances, it now only killed 20% of its hosts. The reason is simple from an evolutionary standpoint - the most virulent viruses never spread to the rest of the population, because they killed their host too quickly.
Dead hosts spread no viruses. Thus, viruses are not looking to destroy the host population, but to use it for its own purposes.
That still doesn't negate the fact that viruses do, in fact, kill organisms. More importantly for the sake of this thread, certain viruses do, in fact, kill and evolve to better and continually kill humans. Don't try and misappropriate a greater sentience to viruses. They aren't "trying" to kill us, per se, but they DO kill us. Granted we evolve to kill them, but that is the very definition of "enemy", as we are opposed forces who, through conflict, mutually benefit as a species in effectiveness.
Dead hosts can easily spread viruses. Ebola doesn't spread until it kills its host, which essentially explodes on death. It is an extremely contagious virus, so don't try and oversimplify it. A singular experiment rabbits is only as good as what it is experimenting. If viruses were not a threat, and didn't kill people, then why is HIV an issue today? Would you mind getting ebola? Why are so many measures taken against such viruses, then?
From a greater standpoint, viruses and their hosts are at continual conflict. I fail to see how you can deny this. Evolution is the means of this conflict, and as each side evolves to better defeat the other, the pattern of evolution that has defined this conflict would exist as it has existed for millions of years, not just in humans but all organisms on earth.
What is the viral "best interest" even? I don't think that you can attribute intelligence to their actions, they aren't even constantly a living creature. The only thing we are certain of is that, to survive, they must destroy their host, and left unchecked by evolution, they certainly would ravage all life on this planet. Don't argue that this evidences anything either, the fact that evolution has been our salvation is not evidence that viruses do not destroy us, it is evidence that we can fight back in kind. This is the very definition of a struggle, which is the very definition of two enemy forces.
Yarg, I agree with what you are saying except I would argue that rather than "two steps forward, three steps back" it is the inverse, as evidenced by human progression. I fully accept that humans have acted to their own detriment at times, but over the course of humanity, we have acted more so in our benefit, which is why we are where we are today. It is not easy to define human interaction, but I think that, in general, humans, like all organisms, act toward the benefit of their own survival more so than any other end (emphasizing "in general").
We're all mortal. In time, every single living being will die. We curse it, we race against it, we hide the scars of our battle with it. As time increases, our resources dwindle. As time progresses, we come across more threats, both external (AIDS) and internal (Genocide). And, eventually, we will not only be dead but utterly, irrevocably forgotten.
Dead hosts can easily spread viruses. Ebola doesn't spread until it kills its host, which essentially explodes on death. It is an extremely contagious virus, so don't try and oversimplify it. A singular experiment rabbits is only as good as what it is experimenting. If viruses were not a threat, and didn't kill people, then why is HIV an issue today? Would you mind getting ebola? Why are so many measures taken against such viruses, then?
Ebola is an excellent example of what I was speaking of. How many ebola cases do you hear about per year? They are isolated incidents and they peter out quickly BECAUSE of the virulence of the disease. They are terrible for the individuals involved, to be sure, but the virus poses no real threat to the human population in general, which is, I believe, what this thread was talking about, is it not?
Also, ebola is not as contagious as you make it out to be. It cannot be spread through bodily contact or aerial transmission, because the virus is too fragile to exist for long outside the human body.
HIV is also a great example of the other end of the spectrum. HIV can exist for YEARS in the host without causing symptoms. If HIV manifested quickly, it would not be nearly as big of a problem for us, because people with HIV would know much sooner and could take measures to prevent transmission. The reason HIV is so problematic is because people who have it often do not know that they are HIV-positive.
In any case, by choosing the extreme examples, you overlook millions of other viruses which are far more common. What about rhinoviruses, which causes the common cold? They are arguably far more successful from a biological perspective than either HIV or the Ebola virus. What about the viruses that cause chicken pox, herpes, or the normal flu? These viruses are far more common than these killer death viruses that you speak of, and so ecologically, they are doing much better.
What is the viral "best interest" even? I don't think that you can attribute intelligence to their actions, they aren't even constantly a living creature. The only thing we are certain of is that, to survive, they must destroy their host, and left unchecked by evolution, they certainly would ravage all life on this planet. Don't argue that this evidences anything either, the fact that evolution has been our salvation is not evidence that viruses do not destroy us, it is evidence that we can fight back in kind. This is the very definition of a struggle, which is the very definition of two enemy forces.
No, they don't need to destroy their host to survive. There are thousands of viruses which have no immediate deleterious effect on their host. They use the cell's machinery to produce new viruses without destroying the cell.
Your overly dramatic and anthropomorphic view of evolutionary biology astounds me. I advise you to go do some research and come back when you know more.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
BTW-I think that Yog-Sothoth and Nyarlathotop are very likely the most entertaining words/names to say out loud in any language.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
This is blatantly untrue. Viruses are not out to destroy people, because that is completely against their best interests.
The fact is, viruses need hosts in order to survive. If they wipe out the human race, they can no longer reproduce.
This has been shown experimentally. In Australia, as you may know, rabbits are a huge pest problem. To try and curb the rabbit population, they introduced an extremely virulent strain of a particular rabbit-infecting virus. Upon introduction to the population, the virus killed 99% of lab rabbits within the first week. Since this virus bound to a receptor not found in most domestic animals or in humans, it was thought to be a very effective pest control measure.
So what happened? Within 10 years, two things happened. First, the rabbits evolved resistance to this strain of the virus. This was expected, and not a surprise. However, the virus had also decreased in lethality. Whereas before it killed 99% of the lab rabbits within the first week, which had not evolved resistances, it now only killed 20% of its hosts. The reason is simple from an evolutionary standpoint - the most virulent viruses never spread to the rest of the population, because they killed their host too quickly.
Dead hosts spread no viruses. Thus, viruses are not looking to destroy the host population, but to use it for its own purposes.
Dead hosts can easily spread viruses. Ebola doesn't spread until it kills its host, which essentially explodes on death. It is an extremely contagious virus, so don't try and oversimplify it. A singular experiment rabbits is only as good as what it is experimenting. If viruses were not a threat, and didn't kill people, then why is HIV an issue today? Would you mind getting ebola? Why are so many measures taken against such viruses, then?
From a greater standpoint, viruses and their hosts are at continual conflict. I fail to see how you can deny this. Evolution is the means of this conflict, and as each side evolves to better defeat the other, the pattern of evolution that has defined this conflict would exist as it has existed for millions of years, not just in humans but all organisms on earth.
What is the viral "best interest" even? I don't think that you can attribute intelligence to their actions, they aren't even constantly a living creature. The only thing we are certain of is that, to survive, they must destroy their host, and left unchecked by evolution, they certainly would ravage all life on this planet. Don't argue that this evidences anything either, the fact that evolution has been our salvation is not evidence that viruses do not destroy us, it is evidence that we can fight back in kind. This is the very definition of a struggle, which is the very definition of two enemy forces.
Yarg, I agree with what you are saying except I would argue that rather than "two steps forward, three steps back" it is the inverse, as evidenced by human progression. I fully accept that humans have acted to their own detriment at times, but over the course of humanity, we have acted more so in our benefit, which is why we are where we are today. It is not easy to define human interaction, but I think that, in general, humans, like all organisms, act toward the benefit of their own survival more so than any other end (emphasizing "in general").
We're all mortal. In time, every single living being will die. We curse it, we race against it, we hide the scars of our battle with it. As time increases, our resources dwindle. As time progresses, we come across more threats, both external (AIDS) and internal (Genocide). And, eventually, we will not only be dead but utterly, irrevocably forgotten.
Ebola is an excellent example of what I was speaking of. How many ebola cases do you hear about per year? They are isolated incidents and they peter out quickly BECAUSE of the virulence of the disease. They are terrible for the individuals involved, to be sure, but the virus poses no real threat to the human population in general, which is, I believe, what this thread was talking about, is it not?
Also, ebola is not as contagious as you make it out to be. It cannot be spread through bodily contact or aerial transmission, because the virus is too fragile to exist for long outside the human body.
HIV is also a great example of the other end of the spectrum. HIV can exist for YEARS in the host without causing symptoms. If HIV manifested quickly, it would not be nearly as big of a problem for us, because people with HIV would know much sooner and could take measures to prevent transmission. The reason HIV is so problematic is because people who have it often do not know that they are HIV-positive.
In any case, by choosing the extreme examples, you overlook millions of other viruses which are far more common. What about rhinoviruses, which causes the common cold? They are arguably far more successful from a biological perspective than either HIV or the Ebola virus. What about the viruses that cause chicken pox, herpes, or the normal flu? These viruses are far more common than these killer death viruses that you speak of, and so ecologically, they are doing much better.
No, they don't need to destroy their host to survive. There are thousands of viruses which have no immediate deleterious effect on their host. They use the cell's machinery to produce new viruses without destroying the cell.
Your overly dramatic and anthropomorphic view of evolutionary biology astounds me. I advise you to go do some research and come back when you know more.