[gtboys34]

i was taught that we were at the top of it. but i've become a little skeptical about that as of late. I'm not too not sure if it's considered the "food chain" considering that the source im gonna list doesn't chew us and spit us out, or hell, maybe it does. Natural disasters and disease kill millions of people each year and affect millions more. Not even animals are spared their ferociousness and destruction. So my question is, wouldn't this put diseases and or natural disasters at the top of the chain instead of us? Maybe we should have dual chains? food and a ....

just a thought biggrin:

[Zoner]

Too deep, man. Waaaay too deep. Go piss in someone's hair.

..and no, we're the top of the food chain. Natural disasters and diseases don't use us for "food".

[Sirus]

oOo:

[Coleman]

lol @ thinking natural disasters are animals

[gtboys34]

Originally Posted by Zoner

Natural disasters and diseases don't use us for "food".

i know, thats why i said there should another chain created where it is on the list. just dont know what the name of it would be stupid:

[quote:9818d]lol @ thinking natural disasters are animals[/quote:9818d]
??

[Stammer]

We're at the top because we have no consistent natural predators. Sure the occasional bear, shark, scotsmen will eat someone but...

[strvs]

Originally Posted by Zoner

Natural disasters and diseases don't use us for "food".

ol

[Coleman]

Originally Posted by gtboys34

??

In order to be in the food chain, it has to be considered alive. A virus isn't on the food chain since it's not alive so there is no way in hell an earthquake is alive.

[gtboys34]

Originally Posted by Coleman

In order to be in the food chain, it has to be considered alive. A virus isn't on the food chain since it's not alive so there is no way in hell an earthquake is alive.

Ok, i understand that but i never thought that animals were natural disasters. And btw, when a disease latches onto a human/animal, doesn't that make that disease alive?

[Blase]

Originally Posted by gtboys34

Ok, i understand that but i never thought that animals were natural disasters. And btw, when a disease latches onto a human/animal, doesn't that make that disease alive?

Virii aren't considered alive because they only carry out one function that living beings do, reproduce. They don't eat food, they don't communicate, they don't have any internal organs, ect. ect. ect.

[Coleman]

Originally Posted by gtboys34

Ok, i understand that but i never thought that animals were natural disasters. And btw, when a disease latches onto a human/animal, doesn't that make that disease alive?

it seemed to me that you were calling natural disasters things on the food chain which implies they have to be a living thing with the intent to kill in hope to use the "food" as nourishment.

[Nyck]

[img]http://www.nelson.com/nelson/highered/ged/graphics/ged-all.jpg[/img]

[Coleman]

LMAO

[Doctor Duffy]

Originally Posted by Zoner

Natural disasters and diseases don't use us for

ROFL

[gtboys34]

[quote=Coleman]

Originally Posted by gtboys34

Ok, i understand that but i never thought that animals were natural disasters. And btw, when a disease latches onto a human/animal, doesn't that make that disease alive?

it seemed to me that you were calling natural disasters things on the food chain which implies they have to be a living thing with the intent to kill in hope to use the "food" as nourishment.[/quote:abc7c]nah i was speaking in terms of how the destruction path of the disease/natural disaster flows.