Biology/anthropology: Agent Smith's comparison human vs viri

[Pazuzu]

This came up in a non-related discussion on another board, and I lack the proper education to refute it (or know if it in fact is refutable). Basically, someone said the following quote from Agent Smith in the movie "the matrix" is spot on:

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. <...>

To get specific, I guess there are two claims found in the quote that I'd like some help in validating:
1. That man consumes the natural resources such that one needs to move to a new location to survive. I find that this seems obviously wrong, yet it strikes a cord for some reason. Are there in fact examples of this having happened?
2. That no other animal follow such a pattern (if such a pattern exists).

Of course, if there are other things worth pointing out as true or false in the quote, I'd appreciate that as well.

I find that the whole idea in the comparison irks me, but I'm unable to formulate any reason as to why, and I lack the vocabulary and understanding of the subject matter to do any effective google searches.

[Izawwlgood]

As someone who nerded out hard over the Matrix, I feel compelled to chime in here;

Neither of Smiths claims are true.
1) Permanent settlements can be found across the world. What IS true is that we have become increasingly efficient at improving our production capabalities to match our unchecked growth. That is different from saying we move from one area to the next consuming and depleting.
2) All migratory animals actually follow that pattern. They live somewhere that can sustain them, then the seasons change (or they deplete the resources available) and move onto another area. The only thing that makes animals different from people in this regard is that animals are limited by the resources naturally available to them, whereas man is capable of producing resources.

I also want to point out that Smiths rant is a bit... vindictive in nature. Remember, he's trying to break Morpheus, so everything Smith says can be taken with a grain of salt. What's that, you think humans are monsters that deserve to be expunged, while I'm trying to resist your influence? Yes, tell me more about why you are telling the truth right now.

Also, it bears mentioning that Smith has quite accurately described the life strategy of the machines; they are parasites upon people, and the Matrix is effectively their food supply. That they've gotten to a point where the food supply is 'running dry', so to speak, is really indicative of how flawed the machines are. If anything, Smiths speech is just as much a self-reflection as a criticism of Man. Which, really, I think, makes the conclusion of the series all the more disapointing, that they didn't find a way to successfully cohabitate.

[idobox]

Most animals will behave like that if nothing else checks their population. They will consume ressources and multiply until they deplete the ressources. If they have the opportunity, they will move, if they don't, they will almost all die. It's called a malthusian catastrophe, and has happened a few times when animals have been implanted on islands.

[Angua]

Also, some viruses can live in their hosts without causing too many problems. Your common wart for example.

[epigrad]

As other people have mentioned, neither his characterization of mammals (look up the introduction of pigs to many Pacific islands, or rabbits to Australia) or viruses (We have many, many viruses that coexist with us all the time) is accurate.

[chenille]

Smith is just one more bad guy who doesn't understand how the natural world really works. People see that it stays in equilibrium and imagine that's deliberate, but it only stays in that way when each species checks the others, and if something wrecks that there's no particular tendency for organisms to live within their means. As far as accuracy goes, he might as well have used:

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. At least you aren't, Morpheus. Mammals have hair and produce milk but you do not.

Edit: Just for the record, I was willing to forgive him because he's an AI and probably never even got to see another mammal before they were wiped out.

[Izawwlgood]

Uh, pointing to the male of a species and saying 'you do not produce placenta to give birth to live offspring' isn't exactly accurate.

Also, 'equilibrium state' is kind of misrepresented here by Smith.

[chenille]

I'm not saying it would be accurate, Izawwlgood, just that it wouldn't be more inaccurate than what he came up with. Although most males did have a placenta and participate in a live birth once.

[Izawwlgood]

And Morpheus probably produces hair somewhere on his body. Anyway.

[mfb]

That man consumes the natural resources such that one needs to move to a new location to survive.

One can argue that we do that with oil and a lot of metals at the moment - without a good perspective how to continue in the future. In that context, the idea of asteroid mining is quite close to Mr. Smith's comparison.
But that is not something special at humans. We are just the only species which can mine (and use) these resources in large amounts.

[Shivahn]

That man consumes the natural resources such that one needs to move to a new location to survive.

One can argue that we do that with oil and a lot of metals at the moment - without a good perspective how to continue in the future. In that context, the idea of asteroid mining is quite close to Mr. Smith's comparison.
But that is not something special at humans. We are just the only species which can mine (and use) these resources in large amounts.

It's kind of arbitrary to pick those resources, over, say, shrubs and such.

Which deer will eat until none is left and then they all starve and start trying to eat tree bark unless they're kept in check by wolves (or human hunters, since we kind of killed the wolves, at least here).

Basically, chenille is right. The only reason most animals don't ruin their ecosystems is because other parts of the ecosystem keep them brutally in check.

[Diadem]

In addition to what has been said already, I'd like to point out that cancer is not a virus (though, iirc, there are some cancers caused by viri, most aren't).

Another interesting point: We're the only species on this planet capable of getting off this planet. We haven't done so yet, but we have the potential. So what does that make us? We're planet earth's spermatozoa!

[Zamfir]

Or planet earth's skin flakes

[Pazuzu]

Oh wow, lots of good responses! Did I say I love you guys? I love you guys! <3

<...> The only reason most animals don't ruin their ecosystems is because other parts of the ecosystem keep them brutally in check.

Yeah, but for those of us that haven't a clue this is probably what makes us think Smith has got a point. The human race is the odd one out, that isn't being kept in check and thus are more destructive than it should be. The opinion seems to be "all things in nature is being kept in balance as part of the system, except humans who are on a rampage destroying the planet".

I guess this comes from a belief that nature as a whole is one complete system* that corrects itself through intelligent and logical functions/"balancing stuff" (not saying nature itself is intelligent, just that the system 'makes sense'). Humans don't seem to fit in that picture. Then again, that could just be because when one speaks of nature, one usually means 'earth'.

Bah, my vocabulary is failing me. Anyways, from this context his statement makes sense in the way that humans need to be kept in check (by the machines) but Smith is ironically forgetting to question who should keep the machines in check.

*as opposed to, say, nature consisting of lots of separate systems that interact due to proximity/shared parts.


EDIT: for readability

[Izawwlgood]

I guess this comes from a belief that nature as a whole is one complete system

If this concept intrigues you, you should check out Gaia Theory by Lovelock. It's a bit holistic and hokey at times, but a very interesting read that spans a variety of ecological topics.

[Pazuzu]

Actually, this thread has me convinced that I need to read up on biology in general. I should probably learn the generally accepted theories first, and read alternative theories later. Thanks for the tip though, sounds intriguing.

Man, my 'reading up' list does keep growing...

[chenille]

The human race is the odd one out, that isn't being kept in check and thus are more destructive than it should be.

The thing to remember is that all sorts of things can wreck the balance. Individual ponds get choked with weeds, or forests get burnt and replaced by opportunistic plants, so often that we think of it as part of the natural order instead of the balance falling apart, although that's what it is on a small scale. Larger scale upsets become progressively less common, to the point where global shifts take a serious trigger and a long time. Humans just happen to be so widespread that we have a hand in almost every collapse you see, but it's probably reasonable to say they happen on the rare occasion without us.

[Copper Bezel]

Yes.

[chenille]

I thought of the great oxygenation event, but in truth, it seems like the massive extinction is mostly conjecture to me. The oxygen increase is significant but 100 million years is a long time, and I'm not sure why we suppose life couldn't adapt to it, or rather that it would be any worse than the other environmental changes they faced. Aerobes appear in a lot of different lines of prokaryotes. Extinctions from the Huronian glaciation make much more sense to me, but I imagine the full extent must be really speculative, because there's not a great fossil record.

[qetzal]

Yeah, but for those of us that haven't a clue this is probably what makes us think Smith has got a point. The human race is the odd one out, that isn't being kept in check and thus are more destructive than it should be. The opinion seems to be "all things in nature is being kept in balance as part of the system, except humans who are on a rampage destroying the planet".

Except that, contrary to the claims that were raised in the OP, humans don't use up 'all' the resources and move on. We've spread over the entire planet, but I can't think of a single place of any significant size that we've abandoned because we used up essential resources. If you're still having the discussion on the other board, you might challenge them to give even one example.

Also, we are most certainly "kept in check." We're subject to all the constraints that every other form of life is subject to. We need food, water, oxygen, and shelter. We're vulnerable to disease, predation, injury, natural disasters, etc. We certainly have much more capability to deal with those needs and vulnerabilities than, say, a deer, but that's really just a matter of degree. We can certainly cause the extinction of species, but we couldn't possibly destroy all life, much less the planet itself.

[Izawwlgood]

We've spread over the entire planet, but I can't think of a single place of any significant size that we've abandoned because we used up essential resources.

Ever heard of ghost towns or abandoned mines? The Gold Rush? We definitely *do* abandon places we've consumed, but it's not nearly as bad as Smith made it seem.

[qetzal]

Hence my qualifier - "of any significant size." Abandoning a town hardly qualifies for what Smith was describing.

[Zamfir]

The last 7 centuries or so have been of continuous population increase, until recently even of increasing growth rate. It's very possible that the last century was the fastest growing period in human history, even in percent/year

So recent history and even not so recent history is a bad guide to 'typical' growth of human populations. Current population is 20 times that of the year 1300, so it's only to be expected that most livable places are at least populated as they ever were.

But in the longer run, you definitely see human populations grow and shrink. Locally and worldwide.

[qetzal]

Yes, you do. But are there any examples of humans using up "all the resources" in a significant area, and then having to move on? I can't think of any. But even if there are, that's not been a characteristic of the entire human species. Not to date, anyway. Some would certainly argue that we're headed towards using up many essential resources. But that hasn't happened yet, so Smith's metaphor is certainly not demonstrated. And even if that does happen, the only options for moving on will almost certainly be population crash and possibly extinction.

[mfb]

The population of some islands did that - usually with trees.
Sometimes, the population was able to adapt, like the greeks. Sometimes, they found a way to move on, and sometimes most of them died (e.g. easter islands).

>> Some would certainly argue that we're headed towards using up many essential resources.
And we will have to move on (bring stuff from moon/asteroids/whatever to earth) or adapt, and this process will become significant in our current century. Probably both will be done in some way.

[idobox]

Yes, you do. But are there any examples of humans using up "all the resources" in a significant area, and then having to move on? I can't think of any. But even if there are, that's not been a characteristic of the entire human species. Not to date, anyway. Some would certainly argue that we're headed towards using up many essential resources. But that hasn't happened yet, so Smith's metaphor is certainly not demonstrated. And even if that does happen, the only options for moving on will almost certainly be population crash and possibly extinction.

I know that some people think the Maya destroyed arable land by overusing it, and that it caused their collapse.

There are a number of example of over irriguation depleting the aquifer so much, sea water comes up the fluvial bassin and rendres the land unusable. That's happening right now in Bangladesh and in a few other areas.
Overuse of arable land, overfishing and overhunting are quite common too.
There are a number of ruin cities in what are now deserts. Quite often, exterior causes made the area unlivable, but I'm sure you could find example of cities shooting themselves in the foot.

[gmalivuk]

I'm sure you could find example of cities shooting themselves in the foot.

This is likely the case with lots of abandoned cities, as long as you aren't requiring that environmental overexploitation be the *only* reason for the city's decline, since often there were wars or disease or external economic factors that played a part as well.

[sebwiers]

I find that the whole idea in the comparison irks me, but I'm unable to formulate any reason as to why, and I lack the vocabulary and understanding of the subject matter to do any effective google searches.

The reason it irks you is its a bullshit insult that's meant to make Morphius (and you) feel guilty and willing to give up. It's about as legit as Smith's later claims that he's building a better matrix, improving the world, etc.
In literary terms, he's the classic case of an "unreliable narrator".

Besides, what are the machines doing to survive and reproduce that's oh-so-much-more resource-friendly? (Or, for that matter, even obeys the basic laws of thermodynics?)