Jump to content
Science Forums

Humans just a stress?


Fishteacher73
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have toyed around with the idea for some time with the concept of applying Le Chatlier's Principle (A system at equilibrium will maintain equilibrium. If a stress is applied, the system will shift to alieviate this stress and return to equilibrium. Originally used in reference to a chemical reaction.) on a broader scope such as on ecosystems (or eaven the Earth as a whole). This could imply that many of the problems facing humans today (An obvious stress) are the result of the system's attempts to regain balance. In other words, new diseases arising and local weather phenomenon (droughts, etc.) would be the attempts of the system to reduce the stress of over-population by humans.

 

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Using the word 'attempts' seems to give it a consiousness, but I don't think you mean that. I agree that overpopulation will correct itself, though I don't know about weather. As a population increases, all the problems increase directly - If there is a population of twenty people per square mile, sickness doesn't spread as quickly as if there were a thousand people per square mile, compounding what could be a simple cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have toyed around with the idea for some time with the concept of applying Le Chatlier's Principle (A system at equilibrium will maintain equilibrium. If a stress is applied, the system will shift to alieviate this stress and return to equilibrium. Originally used in reference to a chemical reaction.) on a broader scope such as on ecosystems (or eaven the Earth as a whole). This could imply that many of the problems facing humans today (An obvious stress) are the result of the system's attempts to regain balance. In other words, new diseases arising and local weather phenomenon (droughts, etc.) would be the attempts of the system to reduce the stress of over-population by humans.

 

Any thoughts?

I have believed that without a doubt for a while now.

Weve been upsetting the balance of nature for quite some time now and alot of people are in denial of that fact.(or dont care)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the word 'attempts' seems to give it a consiousness, but I don't think you mean that.

No I did not mean to imply some sort of rational behind this.

 

In terms of weather, people impose subtle changes on the system, as for example desertification. As land becomes overused, it does not hold the moister as well and starts a feedback loop progressing the destruction of once usable land. As this shift in ecosystem type progresses, the weather paterns around it are also altered. Perpetuating the problem and making the area less habitable to humans. My original idea was to encompas these events under a macro-view of LeChatlier's Principle. Can we look at how things work on an atomic level and extrapolate these concepts to explain interaction on a larger biological scale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it, the earth was 'all natural' (for lack of a better term) and weve harvested sooo many things from it and cut down all the trees and paved all the land and introduced new structures to change wind patterns and set off nukes and overpopulated, and the list goes on.

think of every house and parkinglot. all of the water cannot soak in and is all diverted to the rivers. the ozone is disappearing, the ice is melting, land fills giving off fumes in high consentrations....

plus if you want to get into touchy, saving every life that natural selection would take care of....

 

i could go on and on.

its definitely happening.

it scares me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not arguing for or againt it Drakon (There should not be an argument. The evidence is massive for the fact that humans are a detriment to the Earth at our current path. This is paramount to arguing that gravity is a myth.) My question is that can we link all of these changes, (predominantly biological), to a single mindset emcompassed by this theory? Can we extrapolate up to this level.

 

Physics>Chemistry>Biology>Ecology

 

Each step defines the range of possibilities of the following.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im sorry, im just a little worked up right now....

 

That is the evidence that were disrupting and i think that the current changes are definitely a course following that principle.

Physics>Chemistry>Biology>Ecology

 

I would have to say that it is definitely reversable.

ecology made up of biology and matter encompassing the chemistry involved would logicly follow the laws of physics.

...on a greater level than most people think of.

 

im tired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't have to be closed systems. Two words: Easter Island... :)

 

For those of you who've spent time fiddling with Life (or better yet, fiddling with the parameters on the Mandelbrot set equation), isn't it interesting how hard it is to get anything to last for more than a few dozen generations (or get any interesting pictures with mutations of Mandelbrot)? Or when you get a stable Life configuration, one extra live dot can ruin your whole day...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Le Chatlier's Principle (A system at equilibrium will maintain equilibrium. If a stress is applied, the system will shift to alieviate this stress and return to equilibrium. Originally used in reference to a chemical reaction.)

 

While not stated, your application of a general principle of chemistry to the whole biosphere is creating or selecting a metaphor to characterize the entire Earth system. The metaphor is, "Earth's biological system is a chemical reaction", or, possibly, "...is LIKE a chemical reaction". This is a common way to start out to prove a hypothesis, i.e., to assume that one thing is like another, then test the limits of the hypothesis to see if it holds up.

 

I have questions about the extension of a non-organismic metaphor to an organismic system, though. Assuming Le Chatlier was talking about common, simple chemical reactions, we then have to consider that the entire biological system of Earth is a complex interactive system that is FAR FROM equilibrium, by virtue of its essential activity, which is life itself. If you could shut life off with a switch, in a million or so years, Earth would look a lot more like Venus -- carbon dioxide atmosphere, high surface temperatures, and a rapidly decreasing supply of water as hydrogen is driven off by heat. That is, it would approach equilibrium, thermodynamically, without life. We're trying to find out right now whether that's what has happened to Mars, and Titan is the next object of scrutiny for non-equilibrium conditions that might have been caused by life.

 

I would be surprised if the metaphor you're proposing would hold up, even though I feel like we've got it coming, if there's any justice in the universe at all... The reason I'm doubtful is that it seems extremely improbable that the scale and complexity of the whole living system of the world would by chance have developed higher-order equilibrating mechanisms sensitive to the kinds of disruptions caused by thoughtless and wasteful mammals.

 

We have good examples of massive disruptions to the biology of Earth (invention of photosynthesis; Permo-Triassic Crisis; K-T extinction; Pleistocene Ice Ages (smaller, so far) -- and smaller events like crustal volcanism, etc. In all these cases, life, knocked way off balance, managed to right itself and regrow, i.e., it worked to re-establish the NON-equilibrium conditions of the biome. It doesn't seem likely that it (life) has ever gotten big enough to have had to evolve brakes to put on against the possibility that humans would evolve, sully their nest, and have to be taken out to save the rest of the world.

 

On the other hand, there is no doubt that there are influences that can act either to stabilize the biome in the face of disruption, or possibly to send it into a tailspin. For example, theoretical calculations indicate the possibility that the spread of continental ice sheets, if they were to grow large enough, could increase the albedo of Earth to the point that too little solar radation would be absorbed to heat the surface enough to reverse the trend. The world of life, under that circumstance could, theoretically, be all but snuffed out. Of course, if that fate overcame life, atmospheric CO2 would then build up, increasing the greenhouse effect, which could then heat up the atmosphere, and so on. These kinds of cycles, though, are far simpler than mechanisms that would, say, increase disease selectively, limiting survival and reproduction to balance things out.

 

More likely, in my (not too well informed) opinion, is that we could destabilize the system and drive into chaotic fluctuations, not ordered ones, and we might well go extinct in the trough of one of these oscillations.

 

Interesting idea. Worth more thought, for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have believed that without a doubt for a while now.

Weve been upsetting the balance of nature for quite some time now and alot of people are in denial of that fact.(or dont care)

 

No, we are natural creatures, everything about us is natural, and everything we do comes from our nature.

The evidence is massive for the fact that humans are a detriment to the Earth at our current path. This is paramount to arguing that gravity is a myth.

 

Can you show me some evidence? I see evidence of massive changes caused by us, but I don't know what is "good" or "bad" with regard to the earth. I've found that many people seem to think that humans shouldn't interfere with anything else in nature, which I find paramount to putting humans apart from nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fiddling with the parameters on the Mandelbrot set equation), isn't it interesting how hard it is to get anything to last for more than a few dozen generations (or get any interesting pictures with mutations of Mandelbrot)? Or when you get a stable Life configuration, one extra live dot can ruin your whole day...

 

Another Chaos fan? Butterflies forever! Last weekend I got a photo of what looked like a "wild" Mandelbrot set in an ice floe on the Missouri River. I don't know how big a jpg I could send, but it might tickle your fancy like it did mine. Maybe I'll try it by email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we are natural creatures, everything about us is natural, and everything we do comes from our nature.

 

The way we used to be,as hunter gatherers and such,yes.

The further we evolved in the intellectual level, the more we became 'aware', the more we needed to fufill the desire for power.

Throughout modern history, the people 'in charge' have always tried to supress and control the people. dumb down the populace in order to remain in control and punnish or eliminate opposition. The thinkers kept thinking, but the masses or 'general public' have grown to far outnumber the rest. With freedoms, we have become arrogant, and arrogance along with ignorance and deciet (spelling?) have put us into the current state we are in. People have grown to love the all powerful dollar much more than the betterment of man or the earth and thats the vicious cycle of power that has resulted. look at the commercial market, look at reality tv, look atathe educational levels across the country as a whole.

 

We have broken away from nature and are following out our own created morph of human nature. Its a downward spiral. Thats the unbalance that will ensure our extinction if we dont do something to use our intelligence in a productive way.

 

I know it all sounds like propaganda and conspiracy theories, but if you place everything together, it fits. ...far better than it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way we used to be,as hunter gatherers and such,yes.

The further we evolved in the intellectual level, the more we became 'aware', the more we needed to fufill the desire for power.

Throughout modern history, the people 'in charge' have always tried to supress and control the people. dumb down the populace in order to remain in control and punnish or eliminate opposition. The thinkers kept thinking, but the masses or 'general public' have grown to far outnumber the rest.

There have always been leaders and followers among human social groups (and most mammals). Some philosophers (Nietzsche) propose the existance of an Uebermann who moves society ahead with creativity, charisma, other talents respected by the "masses." Without them there would be less (no) progress. It's neither good nor evil (bad), it just is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...