Skip to main content

Viruses and Plastic (and Vladivir)

Part 1:

 1:
    "Where am I? What's happening?"

    "Hello Vladivir. To answer your first question, you're nowhere, existing only in the minds eye of the reader. To answer your second, you have been called into existence as a hypothetical narrative being, for the purposes of a college writing assignment. Shall we begin?"

    "...Sure?"

    "Very good then. You see, Vladivir, I have stumbled upon an issue that bothers me. Viruses do not fall under our current definition of 'alive', I find this odd considering they do various activities one might associated with something living, they mutate, they reproduce, they even evolve and adapt to their environments. The reason they aren't considered alive is that they do not grow, they cannot reproduce on their own (requiring a host-cell to do it for them), and they do not produce or use their own energy (they mooch off of the host cell's), and all of those things are required for something to be considered alive by our current definition of the word.
    But that's just the thing, isn't it, Vladivir? It's our definition of the word. Us, humans, toolmakers, and some might say our most important tool is definition, descriptions we created so that we might make sense of the world around us. The people who would say that are wrong, our most important tool was the sharpened rock, but I digress.
    People so often conflate definitions with reality, when, in reality, any definition for anything is bound to fall apart under scrutiny because definitions are not inherent to reality. I ask you, what is a chair? Is it something you sit on? Well, most anything can be sat on, but you would hardly describe a barrel full of nuclear waste as a 'chair'. Is a chair something that was designed to be sat on? Well, what if someone made a ham sandwich with the express purpose of being used as a seat? Or someone made an identical replica of the last chair you sat in as an art piece? Would the ham sandwich be more of a chair than the identical copy of a chair? I could go on but you probably get the point, pretty every category you know of (species, gender, economy, physics, philosophy, etc.) is a concept that was made up by humans because it served a utility to us. When we find that a concept/definition would be of more use to us if it was altered, we alter it. Like changing our meaning of elements from "earth, fire, water, and air" to the periodic table we know today, or outright ditching the four humors (blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm) as a medical concept entirely.
    With that in mind, I think we could get more utility out of the definition of life if we altered its parameters to include viruses, because we basically treat them as alive already, what with them having phylogenetic evolutionary trees and all that."

    "You don't think you could ever really do anything about it, do you?"

    "Well, realistically, no. But it's more plausible than you might think."

    "How so?"

    "Well, since the definition is a concept made by humans for the purposes of utility, all you would have to do is convince the biological community that it should be broadened to include viruses. You don't have to do anything tangible, nor does anyone else. The difference would only exist in the collective human consciousness."

    "That still sounds pretty much impossible."

    "Yeah, I don't want to downplay the enormity of the task, I probably won't achieve it my lifetime, considering that I'm not invested in it enough to dedicate my entire life to that. But science history has shown that huge upsets in how we think about things can come from one person (or a small group of people)"

    "If you aren't invested enough to dedicate your life to it, who else will?"

    "I'd love to answer that Vladivir, but I have to be wrapping this up if I want to get this submitted on time. And, as a thought-entity, you will cease to exist once I stop writing you."

    "Wait! No you don't have to do that! We can talk more! I'll say whatever you want me to! Please just don't stop writing me! I want to keep existing! I don't want to d-"

2:
    I think Pollan answers his own question with the idea that, if you don't do it, other people won't either. You should set the example, because you are the only person you control. It's sorta like the "I'm Sparticus" thing, it took one person to do it on their own, and then other people felt compelled to follow in their footsteps.

3:
    I don't know what the believing game or the doubting game are.

4:
    You gotta connect to the reader, relate to them so they have an easier time engaging with the material. I'll try my best not to use first-person.

Part 2:

    Plastic, It's a useful material, and you can find it just about everywhere! in hardware stores, supermarkets, the ocean, the stomachs of animals everywhere, poisoning the ground, in your blood. Okay, okay, you probably don't want plastic in your blood, or most of those other things, but how do we get rid of it? It takes thousands of years for plastic to degrade, and most people don't have the time for that. So, how can we rid ourselves of the plastic menace? Burning it wouldn't be of much help, since it would pollute the air the same way burying it pollutes the ground. But what about eating it? Not you, put down the plastic scrap. No, the one's eating it should be bacteria! 


Recent discoveries have revealed that bacteria can break down plastic, albeit very slowly... until they sped it up! but unfortunately the sped up bacteria needed a hot environment... until they figured that out too! but the bacteria still can only break down biodegradable plastic... until they found the digestive bacteria in the guts of waxworms (which can break down more commonly used, non biodegradable plastic)! but only in low density... Until... well, nothing for now, the thing with the waxworms was only discovered last year, but the future looks promising!













Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They're Called Cell Phones Because The Phone is of Out Hot Cell Eat The Phone

     (The title is a reference, if you don't understand, don't worry about it.)      These two articles are a bit more linked than normal, as one is a direct response to the other. Though aside from the fact that they both talk about phones and are written in English, there aren't many comparisons I can make, they differ from each other quite severely.     First, and most obviously, their stances on cellphones are direct opposites. The one titled "Have Smartphones Destroyed A Generation?" Is, shockingly (not really,) thinks that the impact smartphones have on the youths is negative overall, whereas the response, "No, Smartphones are Not Destroying a Generation" thinks that this is not the case (another shocking revelation, I know)     There are also some more minor differences in format, for example, the response is much shorter than the paper it's responding to, which I appreciate greatly because my attention span is garbage. The source...

The tale of a self-destructive reality

Long long ago, before the dawn of time and space, a being of unfathomable scale and power took its last breath, its limp body sinking through the surrounding void, veins bleeding time and body rotting into universes, but some universes were made of flesh that wasn't so decayed, that was fresh enough that it still had some of that infinite power that every primordial scavenger sought to harness, and harness they did, creating vast inter-universal empires headed by warlords wielding god-like power, who hoarded their territories like raccoons, if raccoons were so inclined to hold territory, but some raccoons are more ambitious than others, and warlords were no different, as one of them, Ygadle, had a scheme, by using their near-infinite power, they could repurpose one of their universes into a device known as the Eternity Engine, a hyperspherical construct, quadrillions of light years in diameter, with the capability of pumping the temporal blood back into the corpse from which all re...

The Real Killer Whale Was the Friends We Made Along the Way.

     1: Morality is a mostly human-made invention to categorize actions and behaviors of other humans as either desirable (good) or undesirable (bad). Morality is not a binary, obviously there's a lot of grey area, in fact, most of it is grey-area, but my larger point is that ascribing it to stuff that isn't human gets messy. Is a lion "bad" for eating an elk? Is water "good" for hydrating us? Is lightning "a douche" for turning my hotdog into ash? The answer to all of these is, probably, no.      This was a longwinded way of saying that I don't think Tilikum was the villain in this situation. Were they the victim? Broadly speaking, yes. SeaWorld, famously, is a factory for marine-mammal misery, and if the article is anything to go by, Sealand was basically the equivalent of orca hell, “If you pen killer whales in a small steel tank, you are imposing an extreme level of sensory deprivation on them,” .     The villain of this story, in my op...