Humans just a stress?

Fishteacher73 · 01-28-2005

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?

pgrmdave · 01-28-2005

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.

Drakon1323 · 01-28-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

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)

Fishteacher73 · 01-28-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

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?

Drakon1323 · 01-28-2005

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.

Drakon1323 · 01-28-2005

the movie 'day after tomorrow', ....
i dont think of it as that drastic, but thats more of a horror movie than any other for me.

Fishteacher73 · 01-28-2005

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.

Drakon1323 · 01-28-2005

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.

Quote:

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.