Can self destruction be anticipated?

[Kumar]

Hello,

I have few thoughts, as anticipating "self destruction" looks bit illogical for survival in nature.

1.We develop, introduce, practice and intervene many things which may be self destructive to us.

2.We get many disorders naturaly as our normal body's mechanisms which look destructive to us, so we intervene.

3. Bacterias, pathogens & cancer cells, if tries or opt to kill us, can also be "self destructive".

4. Appoptitis (programmed cell death) can also be "self destructive for cells".

How it can become possible that we, our body system, pathogens and cancer cells while becoming destructive to us also become "self destructive" and oppose survival? Can nature allow such destruction with "self destruction"?



Best wishes.

 

[Idle Mind]

2. Can you clarify what you mean here? I apologize, but I don't quite understand.

3. Bacteria and viruses aren't necessarily self-destructive. They are other organisms that are exploiting our bodies in some way to benefit themselves. Cancer comes about when parts of our cells get out of control as it were. However, there is usually a cause to this that is beyond our control.

4. Apoptosis is more often useful than harmful. I wouldn't consider the death of a single cell 'self-destruction' as far as the entire organism is concerned.

"Nature" (and I really hate anthropomorphizing like this) didn't intend individual organisms to live forever. It works on a much grander scale. Individuals die all the time, but what's important is that the species lives on. It is us humans that mourn individual death, and try to prevent it at all costs, not nature.

 

[valich]

I think you're adding a human induced moral dimension to Nature's amoral system. There is no right and wrong inherent in Nature, so how can you ask, "How it can be possible that...." Some organisms succeed in the way they have evolved and continue to reproduce while other don't and then die off.

 

[Kumar]

Natural means inherent sense of right and wrong. But I doubt that nature can give sense for self destruction & suicide in normal circumstances to any living being. How then, we, natural happenings in our body, pathogens, cancer cells etc. can think of killing us resulting their death or "self destruction?

 

[Kumar]

2. Can you clarify what you mean here? I apologize, but I don't quite understand.

3. Bacteria and viruses aren't necessarily self-destructive. They are other organisms that are exploiting our bodies in some way to benefit themselves. Cancer comes about when parts of our cells get out of control as it were. However, there is usually a cause to this that is beyond our control.

4. Apoptosis is more often useful than harmful. I wouldn't consider the death of a single cell 'self-destruction' as far as the entire organism is concerned.

"Nature" (and I really hate anthropomorphizing like this) didn't intend individual organisms to live forever. It works on a much grander scale. Individuals die all the time, but what's important is that the species lives on. It is us humans that mourn individual death, and try to prevent it at all costs, not nature.

Will bacterias, viruses, cancer cells etc. survive, if they kill us?

How apoptosis is useful to suiciding cells? It may be useful to whole organism but I doubt if nature can encourage/establish or allow suicide which any living being can opt and prefer intentionally and happily?

Natural death is different from death by suicide or intentional self destruction.

Pls reconsider in view of following quote;

Symbiosis and evolution
The biologist Lynn Margulis, famous for the work on endosymbiosis, contends that symbiosis is a major driving force behind evolution. She considers Darwin's notion of evolution, driven by competition, as incomplete, and claims evolution is strongly based on co-operation, interaction, and mutual dependence among organisms. According to Margulis and Sagan (1986), "Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking." As in humans, organisms that cooperate with others of their own or different species often outcompete those that don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

 

[pilpaX]

there are many triggers for cell to go apoptosis
for instance, cells in most of multicellural organisms go apoptosis when other cells surrounding it stop signalling it to live.
old and damaged cells should be removed and replaced by new ones before they start doing more damage than good for the tissue. whats illogical about that?

some dna mutations, including one that controlls cell apoptosis and we have canser.

 

[pilpaX]

and anyway, nature is not smart nor clever - its random.
pathogens have evolved to survive until they can spread to the next host, it doesent matter that some of organisms die with the old one

 

[Kumar]

there are many triggers for cell to go apoptosis
for instance, cells in most of multicellural organisms go apoptosis when other cells surrounding it stop signalling it to live.
old and damaged cells should be removed and replaced by new ones before they start doing more damage than good for the tissue. whats illogical about that?

some dna mutations, including one that controlls cell apoptosis and we have canser.

Will it be considered as killing or suicide/apoptosis? Whether suicide is not against nature or survival?

and anyway, nature is not smart nor clever - its random.
pathogens have evolved to survive until they can spread to the next host, it doesent matter that some of organisms die with the old one

Any organism may want to spread or die naturally. How pathogens, cancer cells any other organism can achieve either of these by killing its host?

 

[pilpaX]

Will it be considered as killing or suicide/apoptosis? Whether suicide is not against nature or survival?

you are asking wrong questions. if city is organism and cops kill murderer, is it against nature?

Any organism may want to spread or die naturally. How pathogens, cancer cells any other organism can achieve either of these by killing its host?

i imagine that viruses and bacteria actually doesent "want" to achieve nothing, they have no wishes or wills. mostly if they find right substrate, they just eat and divide as fast as they can, if its inside some other organism, then to bad for that organism. most of hosts die because bacteria cant swallow big stuff, so they secrete chemicals that brake big stuff up into little molecules, apparetly these chemicals are mostly toxins.

 

[Roman]

Technically, the vast majority of pathogens die upon reproduction. Unicellular pathogens die when they undergo mitosis, or fission. Viruses die (though they never really were alive) when they inject their DNA or RNA into the host cells.

Cancer seems to be a 'deprogramming' so to speak. Our bodies are collectives of cells, and somehow multicellular organisms found a way to get everything growing in harmony. It's quite a feat that all our cells aren't in competition, but cooperation. Cancer is a few of the cells going bad and reproducing out of control.

 

[Kumar]

you are asking wrong questions. if city is organism and cops kill murderer, is it against nature?

That work is done by immune cells. It is ok on part of killing or controlling pathogens but how it is correct on part of our own cells. How this example can be related to bacterias etc. progressing for host destruction resuting into their "self destruction"?

i imagine that viruses and bacteria actually doesent "want" to achieve nothing, they have no wishes or wills. mostly if they find right substrate, they just eat and divide as fast as they can, if its inside some other organism, then to bad for that organism. most of hosts die because bacteria cant swallow big stuff, so they secrete chemicals that brake big stuff up into little molecules, apparetly these chemicals are mostly toxins.

It looks bit odd that nature has not gifted intelligence for survival to any living being.

 

[Kumar]

Technically, the vast majority of pathogens die upon reproduction. Unicellular pathogens die when they undergo mitosis, or fission. Viruses die (though they never really were alive) when they inject their DNA or RNA into the host cells.

That can be considered as their natural death but not suicide. I want to understand if they can have intentional destruction to host resulting into somewhat sucidal attempt.

Cancer seems to be a 'deprogramming' so to speak. Our bodies are collectives of cells, and somehow multicellular organisms found a way to get everything growing in harmony. It's quite a feat that all our cells aren't in competition, but cooperation. Cancer is a few of the cells going bad and reproducing out of control.

I think, even cancer cells may remain in their senses for their surrival. How nature can allow them to kill host which also can just be somewhat sucidal attempt?

We may need lifelong DBPC studies to understand results with and without our introductions & interventions to justify real impact of any disease, infection or disorder. But it may not be practical to do such studies.

 

[Roman]

That can be considered as their natural death but not suicide. I want to understand if they can have intentional destruction to host resulting into somewhat sucidal attempt.

They don't. The most successful pathogens don't destroy their host. They make them sick and move on to another host. Ebola hasn't become widespread because it's too virulent. The flu or the cold, on the other hand, are far more successful.

I think, even cancer cells may remain in their senses for their surrival. How nature can allow them to kill host which also can just be somewhat sucidal attempt?

Well, typically when someone gets the cancer, they die. Sort of like nature's way of getting rid of it, isn't it?
But your question doesn't make that much sense. It's like asking "how can nature make a caribou that gets caught, or an arm that breaks?"

 

[invert_nexus]

Unicellular pathogens die when they undergo mitosis, or fission.

This isn't necessarily true.
There has been experimentation that shows that a bacteria can divide so many times before it dies. That is, that the division of a cell leads to a mother and daughter cell. The mother cell has one division marked off its lot in life while the daughter cell is just beginning.

I'm afraid I don't have the link to the Science article that said this. Nor do I know how widespread it is through the bacterial world. I think it was E Coli that was the test bacteria... I could easily be wrong though.

 

[Roman]

This isn't necessarily true.
There has been experimentation that shows that a bacteria can divide so many times before it dies. That is, that the division of a cell leads to a mother and daughter cell. The mother cell has one division marked off its lot in life while the daughter cell is just beginning.

I'm afraid I don't have the link to the Science article that said this. Nor do I know how widespread it is through the bacterial world. I think it was E Coli that was the test bacteria... I could easily be wrong though.

E Coli would most likely be it, as that's the bacterium scientists like to study.

But when it undergoes mitotic division, isn't only half of its original genetic material there? There's a new compliment of genes, though some of them may contain mutations as half of them are copies. Which would make it a different individual.

Or is it a cell divides, only the new chromosomes get a new membrane?

 

[TimeTraveler]

I think you're adding a human induced moral dimension to Nature's amoral system. There is no right and wrong inherent in Nature, so how can you ask, "How it can be possible that...." Some organisms succeed in the way they have evolved and continue to reproduce while other don't and then die off.

Nature is as moral as moral can be, because anything which is immoral for too long, self destructs. Thats nature. The basis for morality is to prevent self destruction. It's the only reason we have the self defense instinct, the instinct to protect the women and children, the instinct to survive, all which we consider to be morally right, simply because it prevents self destruction. Then you look at all the destructive things we do which get considered morally wrong, I think it's obvious that yes, morality is nature. A species is supposed to protect it's own existance, otherwise it will cease to exist, and before you use spiders as an example, we humans were not designed to live as spiders, no matter how much people may dream of living like that, it's just a fact, we are social animals and we can only survive by helping each other. In our case morality is essential to our survival.

 

[TimeTraveler]

and anyway, nature is not smart nor clever - its random.
pathogens have evolved to survive until they can spread to the next host, it doesent matter that some of organisms die with the old one

Nature is not random. If you want the secret to human success, or to insect success, the better a species is as cooperating with itself, the longer it survives. You can test this law out in experiments.

Many species of Dinosaurs have gone extinct. The key to survival is cooperation. However it's not simply cooperation in bringing about self destruction as humans like to do. It's cooperation for the betterment of mankind, and for the betterment of the earth. Humans have the chance to rule over the earth for a million years, or destroy the earth along with humans. We have unlimited power, unlimited potential, unlimited creative and destructive force, and when you have unlimited ability and no direction, theres no difference between building a better future, and destroying the future, because if all you care about is science for the sake of science, well you'll have many people who get into science simply to destroy everything just like you'll have many people who will get into science simply to make everything better or more efficient, and so on and so forth.

Science will not keep the human species alive, because the human species has no survival agenda, we are like a lifeform thats still unaware of itself on the collective level, we don't even see ourselves as fully human yet, so we destroy ourselves. At some point we will have ot accept that we are human, and work together to improve our collective experience.

We can have anything we collectively want, but we seem to only want to destroy our own, and I'm not sure why it's this way. I would not say it's natural because, nature is something which upgrades and improves over time, the air should be getting cleaner, life should be getting better for all of us, we should be living longer, becoming smarter, we should be improving on all levels all the time for infinity, and the fact that we arent is due to our own self imposed limitations.

 

[invert_nexus]

it's just a fact, we are social animals and we can only survive by helping each other.

Just a little factoid. Humans evolved to be social in small groups.
The small group's solidarity is often defined by aggression towards outsiders.
The tribe is defined by a hatred of all that is not the tribe.

This large-scale society in which we find ourselves floundering in these modern times is a very recent trend and we are not well adapted for it. You can see how difficult maintaining group solidarity without an enemy to galvanize the group can be.
You can also see how leaders utilize this mechanism to lead us around by the nose.

 

[Kumar]

They don't. The most successful pathogens don't destroy their host. They make them sick and move on to another host. Ebola hasn't become widespread because it's too virulent. The flu or the cold, on the other hand, are far more successful.

Yes, that may match with the survival instead with "self destruction".

Well, typically when someone gets the cancer, they die. Sort of like nature's way of getting rid of it, isn't it?
But your question doesn't make that much sense. It's like asking "how can nature make a caribou that gets caught, or an arm that breaks?"

We may not know real outcome unless we conduct life-long DB studies without unnatural interventions. But who will tie bell in the neck of cat, so such studies may be impractical to conduct without interventions to know out come by natural means.Probably body may be able to keep them under control or they may not truble/kill us and remain stable/dormant unless they get signals, that they are being killed.

Let us consider humans. We are introducing and intervening into so many unnatural things. These may give temporary relief in short term but may ultimately destruct us or out next generations. How we are initiated by nature to do such things in view of survival or survival of fittest?

 

[Kumar]

I repeat my previous quote;-

Symbiosis and evolution
The biologist Lynn Margulis, famous for the work on endosymbiosis, contends that symbiosis is a major driving force behind evolution. She considers Darwin's notion of evolution, driven by competition, as incomplete, and claims evolution is strongly based on co-operation, interaction, and mutual dependence among organisms. According to Margulis and Sagan (1986), "Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking." As in humans, organisms that cooperate with others of their own or different species often outcompete those that don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis