McLeansville App: If you are so inclined and have the time, what are your thoughts on the following:

Americans have died from the disease in the last three months.

Cancer starts when cells forget how to die, we probably all have several cancers in us, but they are unable to grow beyond a handful of cells because the have nu blood supply other than what they find in the vicinity. Then they get a mutation that let's them grow blood vessels (angiogenesis) so they start leaching nutrients from the body and start growing. Sometimes they just grow until the crowd out or destroy a vital organ, sometimes they grow until they take too much nutrient from the body, and sometimes they cause changes which affect the bodies ability to function in some other way by e.g. producing large amounts of something the body uses to control a normal function like hunger. Sometimes the cancer learns to create new colonies of itself (metastasize) then every new colony has the chance to cause any of those other deadly problems.

Mankind has metastasized to every corner of the planet. Mankind has learned to divert the worlds nutrient supply, grow it for itself, divert what exists, angiogenesis. Mankind has learned to extend each individual life by 40% and is working on eliminating the need to die. Mankind destroys large tracts of land around anywhere it colonizes heavily. How long do you think it's going to be before the body Gaia dies such that it can no longer support homo sapinoma?

NewApp wrote:McLeansville App: If you are so inclined and have the time, what are your thoughts on the following:

Americans have died from the disease in the last three months.

Cancer starts when cells forget how to die, we probably all have several cancers in us, but they are unable to grow beyond a handful of cells because the have nu blood supply other than what they find in the vicinity. Then they get a mutation that let's them grow blood vessels (angiogenesis) so they start leaching nutrients from the body and start growing. Sometimes they just grow until the crowd out or destroy a vital organ, sometimes they grow until they take too much nutrient from the body, and sometimes they cause changes which affect the bodies ability to function in some other way by e.g. producing large amounts of something the body uses to control a normal function like hunger. Sometimes the cancer learns to create new colonies of itself (metastasize) then every new colony has the chance to cause any of those other deadly problems.

Mankind has metastasized to every corner of the planet. Mankind has learned to divert the worlds nutrient supply, grow it for itself, divert what exists, angiogenesis. Mankind has learned to extend each individual life by 40% and is working on eliminating the need to die. Mankind destroys large tracts of land around anywhere it colonizes heavily. How long do you think it's going to be before the body Gaia dies such that it can no longer support homo sapinoma?

I like the analogy of cancer. I wish is were not the case, but collectively as a species it is an apt analogy.

I don't generally personify earth-it is just a bit to "New Age-ish" for me. but I get what you are getting at.

I do think humans can not do so much damage as to destroy earth of all life (short of nuclear war on a grand scale.) but I do think we can do enough damage that
the h. sapian species could go extinct. Though that would be 1000s of years from now in my view. More likely we screw up fresh water (my biggest concern long term) and a bit of climate change and we have a slow, hard to notice, descent to broken infrastructure which leads to less "civilization," but we still would have humans on earth. That could take some pressure off the environment which would buy our species some time. But with a human generation taking 20-30 years we are not going to adapt/change/evolve as fast as the conditions around us change at the rate we are going. What would happen first is war that could lead to mass killings and population reduction on a global scale. Again less pressure on the environment with less humans to use up resources. (assuming the war is not radioactive.)

Interesting question.

McLeansvilleAppFan wrote:

NewApp wrote:McLeansville App: If you are so inclined and have the time, what are your thoughts on the following:

Americans have died from the disease in the last three months.

Cancer starts when cells forget how to die, we probably all have several cancers in us, but they are unable to grow beyond a handful of cells because the have nu blood supply other than what they find in the vicinity. Then they get a mutation that let's them grow blood vessels (angiogenesis) so they start leaching nutrients from the body and start growing. Sometimes they just grow until the crowd out or destroy a vital organ, sometimes they grow until they take too much nutrient from the body, and sometimes they cause changes which affect the bodies ability to function in some other way by e.g. producing large amounts of something the body uses to control a normal function like hunger. Sometimes the cancer learns to create new colonies of itself (metastasize) then every new colony has the chance to cause any of those other deadly problems.

Mankind has metastasized to every corner of the planet. Mankind has learned to divert the worlds nutrient supply, grow it for itself, divert what exists, angiogenesis. Mankind has learned to extend each individual life by 40% and is working on eliminating the need to die. Mankind destroys large tracts of land around anywhere it colonizes heavily. How long do you think it's going to be before the body Gaia dies such that it can no longer support homo sapinoma?

I like the analogy of cancer. I wish is were not the case, but collectively as a species it is an apt analogy.

I don't generally personify earth-it is just a bit to "New Age-ish" for me. but I get what you are getting at.

I do think humans can not do so much damage as to destroy earth of all life (short of nuclear war on a grand scale.) but I do think we can do enough damage that
the h. sapian species could go extinct. Though that would be 1000s of years from now in my view. More likely we screw up fresh water (my biggest concern long term) and a bit of climate change and we have a slow, hard to notice, descent to broken infrastructure which leads to less "civilization," but we still would have humans on earth. That could take some pressure off the environment which would buy our species some time. But with a human generation taking 20-30 years we are not going to adapt/change/evolve as fast as the conditions around us change at the rate we are going. What would happen first is war that could lead to mass killings and population reduction on a global scale. Again less pressure on the environment with less humans to use up resources. (assuming the war is not radioactive.)

Interesting question.

Thanks for your input. That reinforces some of my views and mega enlightens me on others.
The water theory is something I have heard off and on for years and totally agree with your stance. In fact I have heard from several sources that perhaps our next major war world wide, so to speak, may be over potable water.

Have good weekend and just as importantly, GO APPS.