In the first Mattrix movie, Smith says that humans are not actually mammals. This statement I may agree with because I believe that humans, as intelligent life forms, deserve their own category seperate from the mammalian kingdom.

That statement (by Smith) is simply not true. Just think about rats!

The pattern of the virius is the pattern of life in general. All life spreads like that. That animals are at peace with their environment is a load of crap! What about the FOOD CHAIN? What the heck is Smith talking about?

__________________

What smith means is animals don't reduce each other to extinction-we do that for them,we destroy forests,jungles etc to expand our cities,we suck areas dry of their natural resources eg: oil,trees,coal,also the food chain does ensure an equilibrium in the animal kingdom-only when we get involved does it all go wrong.
I think thats what smith meant.

__________________

Human beings, like viruses don't contribute to the growth of the environment they live in, we plant trees to fell them, we grow crops to harvest them, we assist the population of many animals only to destroy them and eat them ourselves. Viruses do a similar thing, they change the environment around them to give themselves the best chance at survival, give only if they will receive. If we as humans don't find something that we need in the area we are in, we'll move outwards until we do find it or will create it.
The comparison made by Smith is almost uncanny, most animals survive off what is given to them, adapting themselves through evolution (or whatever creationalist theory is used to come to the same conclusion, but let's not go there) to work in harmony with said environment. They don't go out of their way to make substancial changes which can disrupt the whole area.
Imagine if human's didn't exist, the entire planet would most likely be in harmony, there would be fewer animals under threat of extinction, the ozone wouldn't be about to keel over on us, there would be no pollution or waste or haardous materials around. Now there is also the theory that this could be a load of crap too, that there would be different problems if humans weren't around to solve them etc etc, but hey, who cares.

__________________

All animals are a part of 'the circle of life'. Not us. We actively twist nature to our own purposes. Through our technology we have stepped out of the foodchain, and we are allowed to spread like a virus. Smith is 'correct' in his hypothesis, in such a fashion that he draws the correct conclusion from flawed observations. It is not so easy to speak of a seperation between nature and mankind. However, within his anecdote, I believe it did.

Mr U

__________________

That's absurd! Animals kill each other off all the time! It's not as if a predator stops and considers the possible ecological impact on the surrounding environment before hunting down it's prey. It just eats everything it sees that looks tasty that it can get at.

What's more, if nature produced human beings, then human beings are as much a part of nature as any other creature, and if we weren't around, there would be another dominant species creating the same effect.

Nature just doesn't occur in a vaccuum like that.

__________________

Blablablabla. We stepped out of natural selection, out of the foodchain. Like viruses, we don't have a natural enemy.

Mr U

__________________

what does natural selection have to do with it?

Every creature "naturally" follows that same pattern when given the chance.

I do not believe that humans, alone out of all the creatures on the Earth, are the only group to have ever followed a pattern of reproduction that consumes all of an area's natural resources. Rats and other vermin do the same exact thing. The only real difference is that we have ways of killing the rats and the rats can't do anything about it - it has nothing to do with the animal's preferred pattern of behavior.

Just look at the swarms of locusts that consume people's crops whenever they aren't covered in pesticides. They sure as hell consume everything and move on.

[later edit] oh oops - he said mammals only lol.

__________________

lol, I was about to ask why you mentioned them. Don't worry, we all have our vague days, I'm a prime example. Ask anyone in here. However, not only mammals instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but also other animals. Birds, snakes, reptiles etc etc. They are born with the instinct to survive and protect their surroundings via their genetic code or they become extinct. Humans do not. We just consume for want of a better word then think about our actions later.

__________________

You are saying an animal STOPS AND THINKS before eating another animal, ABOUT THE EFFECT IT MIGHT HAVE ON THE ENVIRONMENT!?!?!?!?

I'm sorry, but I'm choking on that one.

__________________

Good thing you did't make a spelling mistake,can't see many people missing it,anyway i think what UT means is,animals don't go out of their way and take/cosume more than they need,we do,we take much much more than we need.

__________________