LIFE ? A Superorganism?

[Zarkov]

Is the whole of the living things on Earth, just one superorganism, preprogrammed genetically to 'evolve' into all the species super cells, each to grow, and modify its environment, and produce flowers and seed?

Biochemically all living organisms share a common set of chemical logic.

Physically a common set of mechanisms and attributes are displayed.

Mentally all living things share a common basic logic, which is enhanced. The extensions of the basic logic become more apparent with supercellls that require their environment to be within exacting limits.

Genetically, all supercells-species are linked by the DNA, RNA, and the common reproductive process.


Maybe some people here may like to peacefully discuss this self reflecting topic.

 

[one_raven]

Have you read any about this:
GAIA Theory

 

[Zarkov]

Hi Raven GAIA Theory includes the Earth itself, but yes there is also the Stoic Theory that the whole Universe is one organism.

Of course they all may be correct, but for us humans, it is quite contrary to common thougth that all life is one superorganism, people would rather believe that they are individuals, responsible and if rational, reasonably factual.

Darwinian evolution would have us all competing, mmmh the world is going that way!!!!
OK, back, instead the living things on this Earth co-operate except when feeding

There is a distinct possibility given the progress in DNA technology that all living things could be part of a planet eating super-organism.... and that implies that that organism, us included, has it's own life cycle.... that we may not have written !!!

Just thoughts.

 

[one_raven]

Hi Raven GAIA Theory includes the Earth itself, but yes there is also the Stoic Theory that the whole Universe is one organism.

Of course they all may be correct

Maybe they are.
Maybe it is all just a fractal existence (for lack of a more specific term) in that every ecosystem is just a reflection of the greater ecosystem it belongs to.

but for us humans, it is quite contrary to common thougth that all life is one superorganism, people would rather believe that they are individuals, responsible and if rational, reasonably factual.

Never underestimate the power of the Ego.

Darwinian evolution would have us all competing, mmmh the world is going that way!!!!
OK, back, instead the living things on this Earth co-operate except when feeding

Can you really draw a clean objective distinction between cooperation and competition?
I think it depends on what angle you are looking from and they are really just degrees of the same concept of interdependency.
With humans, of course, being the exception for several reasons.

There is a distinct possibility given the progress in DNA technology that all living things could be part of a planet eating super-organism.... and that implies that that organism, us included, has it's own life cycle.... that we may not have written !!!

Hmmmmm.... Can you elaborate on that some?

 

[Zarkov]

We know the general progress of a living organism, is
birth, growth, reproduction, and death of the orginals, and life goes on in the newborn.

Well the parent has no control of this process, except to not be a parent, and the odds are stacked against not taking that option for most of a species.

Now if life was a super-organism, one could well expect a similar sequence of event, after all humans would just be a tool, or I like to think of them as flowers of LIFE, the next step is seeding.

Seeding is shown to us in two ways, one is seeding and continued growth for a short while for the parents usually with more seeding, ie a perennial
the other is the annual option... seeding and death of the parents.

You see there may be an agenda that we are not aware of !!!

 

[Zarkov]

>> Can you really draw a clean objective distinction between cooperation and competition?


I would have thought 'competition would result in one greeting bigger by consuming the small fry.

Co-operation is sustainable balance where small fry exist with big fry.

 

[one_raven]

Well, if Earth were a superorgansim, then every bit of life on it could either be considered an organ or a cell of some kind or it can be considered a parasite perhaps.
If the whole organism is earth, there would be a few manners of death we can expect.
All the cells and organs run out of food and the Earth dies of old age (goes the way of Mars).
The parasites (Mankind) destroy the cells and organs and it dies of disease (still ending up like Mars).
It gets destroyed by another organism (a masive body from space crashes into it and blows it up).
The external source of nourishment (the Sun) dies and it withers away from starvation.

What else would you consider to be death of the superorganism?

Also, if teh Earth is a superorganism, and it follows the same rules of evolution as the cells and organs that make it up, do you think that maybe the Earth goes through different life stages and can be considered different species during different stages of its development?

 

[Zarkov]

>> What else would you consider to be death of the superorganism?

I don't think the super-organism LIFE can die, we can die,

>> do you think that maybe the Earth goes through different life stages and can be considered different species during different stages of its development?

Yep, I am sure you could look at LIFE from afar and say exactly what the stage of its development was at.

Flowers anyone?

 

[one_raven]

I would have thought 'competition would result in one greeting bigger by consuming the small fry.

Co-operation is sustainable balance where small fry exist with big fry.

What about when the predator helps to sustain a healthy balance of a species' population thereby assuring that future generations of their prey will not starve by decimation of their natural food source?
Or a parasite that feeds on it host and also provides a valuable service to its host?
I don't think it is quite a clean-cut to make many (if any) objective competitor/cooperator distinctions.

 

[Zarkov]

>> I don't think the super-organism LIFE can die, we can die,


Humans are only seed of super-cells, LIFE's seeds spread, to grow anew.

 

[one_raven]

I don't think the super-organism LIFE can die, we can die,

But if you consider the Earth to be a superorganism and it gets destroyed or it ends up completely devoid of organic life, why would that not be considered death of that organism?
Going back to the fractal thing... Aren't we, in the same sense, a superorganism made up of cells, organs and parasites?
If we can die, why can't the Earth?

Also, if it can't die, can it really be considered an organism?

 

[Zarkov]

>> I don't think the super-organism LIFE can die, we can die,

We are seeds of a super-cell, Life's seeds spread to grow anew and a new you and I.

 

[Zarkov]

>> If we can die, why can't the Earth?


The Earth is only our food. We discard it when it gets too cold, unless cosmic microwave oven are sold.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I definately think life is a super-organism.
But I think human society is a seperate super-organism that branched off of the "life" organism and now the 2 organisms are competing.
OR knows what I'm talking about, I'd link you to the thread where we discussed this but I'm too lazy.

Also I've been contemplating a theory I heard a while back about the whole gaia theory but never was too keen on. Now I'm starting to think it might be onto something.
I'm talking about the concept that humans are the planets way of passing on its "genes".
I think even if we never do manage to colonise another planet the fact we are travelling into space and thinking about it means we are meant to try. If we fail before we go extinct that is the natural selection of the universe taking us, or 'earth' out of the race.

If you imagine earth as a mother with her young on her back like an opossum, eventually they need to grow up and take off.
Humans may be a different stage of development for "life", like egg larvae pupae adult type of deal.
Human society may be the final stage before adulthood.
By going to another planet and starting life there we will be "breeding" in a sense, but its more like earth breeding, releasing its spores into the wind.
Maybe wherever life is, this is whats 'supposed' to happen.
Maybe many of the evolutionary trees on other planets never evolve life capable of space travel, maybe not even close, but thats just that planet failing in the evolutionary race, it doesn't mean it wasn't "trying" to(even though I know it wasn't actually trying to, this must be the hardest subject in the world to talk about )

Anyone following?
This isn't nearly as outrageous as it seems, in fact when you consider nature on earth I think what I'm saying is MORE reasonable than assuming anything else.
It kind of gives a purpose to life, which automatically makes it seem like a religion, but its a purpose in the sense that its the salmons purpose to swim upstream and spawn, no one denies this.

I think there's alot to look into on this subject, I'm surprised its not a more commonly discussed topic.
I've got heaps of ideas running through my head, like maybe earth like planets are extremely rare, but planets that can become lifesupporting with minor adjustments are not. Earth-like planets produce life themselves in colaboration with the sun and this life is expected to find its way to not so fertile planets and make them fertile.
The organism that is life is trying to spread throughout the universe, to us it seems in slow motion, but thats all a matter of perspective, the bacteria on your skin think you move in slow motion.
Or they would if they were more aware of their surroundings

 

[one_raven]

I'm talking about the concept that humans are the planets way of passing on its "genes".
I think even if we never do manage to colonise another planet the fact we are travelling into space and thinking about it means we are meant to try. If we fail before we go extinct that is the natural selection of the universe taking us, or 'earth' out of the race.

That seems to me to imply intention, which, of course, implies cognizant design.

Showing me how this can be possible without a cognizant designer with an intention (a pre-concieved agenda of some sort) as a motive behind it is going to be a hard sell and if you can sell it I will be as impressed as I have ever been with any person.

Give it a shot.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I don't understand why, although i kind of predicted that response.
Does a mouse breeding imply intelligent design? If no then why does what I'm saying imply intelligent design?
I'm just saying this is how the universe operates.
Its complex and wierd, but so is alot of the stuff that we know is happening on earth.
If you look at the breeding cycles of many parastitic organisms it can at times seem too genius to not be designed by some kind of genius.
I'm not saying this is the same deal as what I'm talking about, but it shows how "intelligent" natural processes can seem.
I'm not actually implying intelligent design, I think its trial and error like evolution on earth, we just happen to be on a planet that scored a means of spreading its seed throughout the universe. It didn't intend to as such.

The biggest problem is communicating these sorts of ideas, I can assure you I don't think any magic is involved but trying to phrase it in an understandable way might force me to make it sound like that sometimes, or make it sound like there is an intelligent hand involved or whatever.
I don't, I think its a natural process like any seen on earth, but its on a different level because it is life as a whole reproducing.

Are you familiar with the breeding habits of ants?
Well there is ofcourse the queen reproducing within the colony but eventually the colony needs to reproduce another colony, and some ants spawn wings and fly away to make them(I'm not even sure on the small details, but its something like that) there is the simpler example of the naked mole rat.
It too lives in a colony type society with breeding occurring within the colony but a bizarre urge forces a male to reproduce on the behalf of the colony, he travels out to above ground(unheard of in naked mole rats except for this one process) and tries to find another colony before sun up. If he is lucky enough to find one he needs to sneak in past the viscious guards and find the queen and mate with her.
In doing this he is passing on the genes of his colony as a whole, who were previously just strengthening the one colony.
Colonies are often looked upon as organism's themselves as they tend to have their own breeding strategy and evolution. The individuals breeding within the colony is merely keeping the organism that is the colony alive, the important part is the colony as a whole passing on its genes, and each colonial animal has their means of doing this.
You can see how this parallels with the idea of life on earth as a colony, all the breeding and evolution is just keeping "life" alive long enough for it to be ready to "breed" itself.
Yes the breeding strategy I'm suggesting is elaborate(man colonising other planets) but then so are the breeding strategies of many colonies, maybe not to that extent but you can see the similarities.
Am I becoming clearer or is there something I'm missing?
I don't think any cognizant designer is necessarry for what I'm suggesting, its just the organism that is life's breeding cycle.
Like bees ants or anything else.

 

[one_raven]

One difference is that you are predicting the future of technological advancement as a term of this interstellar relocation.

Another is that you are assuming the intent of nature to propagate this species of animal into space.
Do you really think that the naked rat think was intended to live that way?
The life cyccle, breeding patterns, breeding tecniques etc (no matter HOW advanced, even those parasites that attack organisms brains and control their behavior) can be easily explained, no matter how complex-seeming they are, as a RESULT of their surroundings, rather than the species being designed to fill a need or fit into a niche.
Organisms are not designed with the intention to fit into a complex plan of balance and inter-cooperation organisms evolve to fill holes that exist (unless, of course, you believe in an intelligent designer).
It is similar to creationsts believing that man MUST be a creation of God since he is so complex and billions upon billions of factors had to align jst right in order for him to exist at all.
That is putting the cart before the horse.
Animals simply develop and evolve to fit into available niches and holes in their respective ecosystems.
If man does colonize other planets, it is not because he was designe or destined to, but because he evolved (by chance and other factors) the ability and drive to.

My boss is here and looking over my shoulder, plus my work day is just about done.
I will try and post more later, but this should give you somethig to reply to until then.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

One difference is that you are predicting the future of technological advancement as a term of this interstellar relocation.

And I predict that the rabbit fluke larvae will travel in an ant to get to another rabbit. And I will probably be right.

I'll put it simply, if life is a super-organism it has instincts.
Instincts could seem like an intelligent plan for the organism that has them, they basically are, but does this then necessitate an intelligent designer?
No it does not.
Even if "nasa" was the plan it still doesn't imply an intelligent designer, as long as it is accepted that life is a super organism.

Do you really think that the naked rat think was intended to live that way?

The question is, do you think the male naked mole rat goes and stumbles upon another colony by accident?
Or do his instincts urge him to seek out another colony to pass on the genes of his colony?

We humans think we are satisfying our curiousity with space travel, and the naked mole rat probably thinks he is satisfying some urge to get some fresh poon after becoming tired with whats at home, nature is deceptive to her tools, the naked mole rat needs to do this to keep the species going strong, but he doesn't know that.
And we need to colonise another planet to continue the seed of earth, but we don't know that.
I am still not implying an intelligent designer as such, I'm implying the workings of the instincts of life, which I guess are kind of intelligent in the same way the instincts of any organism are intelligent. They certainly "know" more than the consciousness of the organism itself.

 

[one_raven]

So, what you are basically saying is that man's instinct (stemming from his root instinct of survival of the species) could simply be a desire to propagate life as far and wide as possible (which would eventaully have led, at this stage in his developmental evolution, to extend that propagation to other planets)?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Kind of, except I think it's more life-the superorganism's instinct than man's instinct even though it resides in man.
It isn't man's instinct to propogate other planets, man's instinct is to continue his species, its life's instinct and man is merely the strategy as it were.
Man is life's equivalent of releasing spores into the wind, like I said.