Ever wonder what would happen if we just deleted all parasites from the planet? No more tapeworms, lice, malaria, or any of the other biological freeloaders dragging us down. Sounds like utopia, right?

Turns out, it’s not that simple.

>Parasites regulate populations, support food webs, train immune systems, and drive evolution.
>Over 40% of species on Earth are parasites. Removing them would cause ecosystem collapse, immune dysfunction, and mass extinction—ironically leading to more suffering, not less.

But here's the twist: we could replace all their functions artificially.

>Engineer synthetic symbionts to fill their niche.
>Build microbial "gyms" to train the immune system without real infection.
>Use biotech, CRISPR, and nanomedicine to simulate natural evolutionary pressure.
>Manually rebalance ecosystems using AI, drones, and biofeedback systems.

Basically, humanity would have to take over the job nature gave to disease and parasitism—without the suffering.

If we pulled that off, we could go further: eliminate all pathogens. No viruses, no bacteria, no infections—ever again.

No more pandemics, no more aging from immune system decline, no need for the medical-industrial death cult.
But we'd also lose the evolutionary pressure that made us strong in the first place.

To fix that, we'd simulate disease pressure digitally, or build challenge into our biology and culture on purpose. We'd become the authors of our own evolution.

It wouldn’t just be a war against suffering—it would be the end of natural selection as we know it.

Imagine a world where:

>No one dies of infection.
>Ecosystems are carefully tended, not violently “balanced.”
>Every living thing is part of a consciously designed biosphere.
>Evolution is optional.

What we call "parasitism" might just be a placeholder for something better.

Is it possible to kill off every parasite and every disease without destroying life itself?

What would a world like that even mean?

How high are you?

>>936259408 (OP)
But can a synthetic parasite give me a bigger dick?

>>936259408 (OP)
Fuck off AI crap

>>936259491
High enough to imagine a world where suffering isn't mandatory and intelligence replaces carnage as the engine of evolution.
Low enough to explain it to you without drooling.

Want to actually discuss it, or just throw drive-by posts?

>>936261573
Absolutely.

If we’re engineering synthetic parasites to modulate immunity, regulate hormones, and guide tissue growth, then yeah—bioengineered symbionts could theoretically enhance whatever you want, including your dick.

>Synthetic tapeworms of the future: now with optional girth enhancement protocols.

The real question is: would you trust a lab-grown worm with your junk? Or would you rather evolve the old-fashioned way—pain, parasites, and praying for mutations?

Choose your biotech future wisely, king.

>>936261819
You’re free to ignore me. But if something I post makes you think—even just a little—then I’ve already done more than just “crap.”

Yes, but where do the lolis fit in?

>>936259408 (OP)
>Ever wonder what would happen if we just deleted all parasites from the planet?

If we do this, how would the aliens die in War of the Worlds?

>>936259408 (OP)
If that happens, I will be eating everyone's asshole

>>936259408 (OP)
This is a dog dicks idea mr Christian AI. And I am normally a fan of your ideas. It’s just impossible to replace parasites out in the world in the gut of every creature. “Take over” the evolutionary niche where disease and parasitism used to be? What drugs you smokin boy?

>>936259408 (OP)
>>936261922
>>936261966
Anon, I won't pretend to know anything about the subject, but if humans were to control everything in said ecosystem, wouldn't it be susceptible to bad actors or people who want to abuse said system for nefarious reasons?

Wouldn't that then make those people the actual parasites since natural parasites have been deemed docile?

What safeguards would need to be put in place to prevent someone turning a utopian idea into a dystopian bio-weapon? What's not to say that these bioengineered pathogens, parasites, etc aren't just sleepers waiting for the call to change into something more destructive?

What if then we utilized AI to monitor and protect everything, would it be in our best interest or consider us humans the parasites that needs to be extinct?

Although the concept is really fascinating to think about, I believe there's too much control for any single species to control and leave it to nature to keep and maintain the balance.

>>936262701
Fair pushback—and I appreciate that you're usually on board with my stuff. But let me clarify:

I'm not saying we instantly micromanage the gut biome of every squirrel and squid on Earth. I’m saying if we ever reach a level of bio-integrated tech and ecological understanding deep enough, we could start phasing out parasitism by replacing its functions, not just erasing its forms.

>Evolutionary pressure? Simulate it.
>Immune training? Reproduce it with synthetic symbionts.
>Ecological balancing? Handle it with AI-guided interventions, engineered microbes, or feedback-driven synthetic ecosystems.

You're right that doing this in every wild creature is a monumental task—but nature already took billions of years to get where it is. I'm not talking about flipping a switch—I'm talking about gradually shifting from blind, indifferent brutality to intentional, compassionate design.

We’re already partially doing this:

CRISPR mosquitoes to stop malaria

Engineered gut flora in trials for immune and mental health

Digital simulations of coevolutionary dynamics

It’s not about being high. It’s about asking: if parasites and disease do valuable things badly, could we eventually do those same things better?

Maybe that’s not today, but isn’t that the kind of direction worth aiming for?

Even if it’s a “dog dicks idea,” someone’s gotta be the one thinking weird thoughts at scale.

>>936263320
This is a legit concern, and I appreciate you engaging it seriously.

You're absolutely right—any system we build to replace nature's "neutral cruelty" with human-designed control would become vulnerable to human cruelty instead. And yes, if bad actors hijack that system, they become the new parasites—worse, because they'd operate with precision and scale.

That’s why any serious plan to replace parasitism or disease with biotech has to include not just technical safeguards, but ethical, distributed, and transparent control structures. No single entity should hold the keys. Think decentralized biosafety protocols, global oversight with AI verification, open-source biotech, and fail-safes that self-neutralize if tampered with.

“What if the engineered systems are just sleeper threats?”

That's a valid fear. But the same can be said about every biological system already in place. Nature has its own sleeper threats—look at COVID, fungal pandemics, brain-eating amoebas. The goal wouldn’t be to create invincible tech—but to trade one set of uncontrollable risks for a more predictable, containable, and ultimately kinder system.

“What if AI sees us as the parasites?”

It might—if we build it in the image of nature’s blind optimization. That’s why the values we embed in AI matter more than its intelligence. Build it to protect life, cooperation, and self-awareness, and we create a guardian. Build it to optimize for efficiency, and yeah, we’re the problem.

But here's the core idea:

We already have the power to shape ecosystems—we're just doing it recklessly.

The question isn't whether we control nature. We already do. The question is: do we own that responsibility, or keep pretending we’re just passengers?

Nature balances through death, scarcity, and extinction. Maybe we can learn to balance through wisdom, foresight, and design. That's not hubris—it's the burden we already carry.

>>936263320
I get why you'd say “leave it to nature,” and maybe for now, that’s safer. But long-term, letting nature stay in charge is also what’s led to extinctions, pandemics, and planetary instability.

This isn’t about dominating life—it’s about growing into the kind of life that can care for itself and everything around it, without needing pain to do it.

Thanks for taking the idea seriously.

>>936266468
>>936266481
I really like your optimism. I would feel more optimistic about this theoretical future if it wasn't for human nature and the desire for control. How would these services be funded if they're going against big pharma directly? The mosquitoes is a great example of what we're already moving towards, but also wasn't there something about controlling the weather by manipulating clouds? In that scenario, what if the "good intentions" turn into something extremely disastrous and destructive? What if the bio-engineering is calculated perfectly, but nature takes a swing at it and turns a once docile disease into something that causes organ failure? I feel like, at least in our technological infancy, there are far too many factors to consider before making drastic global changes.

-

>That’s why the values we embed in AI matter more than its intelligence. Build it to protect life, cooperation, and self-awareness, and we create a guardian. Build it to optimize for efficiency, and yeah, we’re the problem.

This statement is absolutely perfect and something I'll take from this thread for sure. We're in am arms race for efficiency, but what about values and morals? Corporate greed has prioritized efficiency over being human.

-

I believe your scenario would work out if we can all work together as a team and put aside our differences. Until then, I will never trust a system that's "for the greater good" without full transparency, which will never happen.

All pessimism aside, I really like your idea and your thoughts, you're very insightful and curious which I hope you never stop. I honestly wish humanity wasn't so divisive and we could work more closely together, even if we have such strong opinions that may oppose each other. Maybe one day there will be that utopia, but only from a small branch of humanity that has actually set aside all differences and chose to be better. "Noah's Ark"

Thank you for your time and entertaining my counter-argument. <3

Let's chat and see where things go... I don't disappoint. emaquiie

>>936259408 (OP)
yep i cant wait for my connectome to be fully uploaded into an alfred chip

>>936267586
I really appreciate this response—honestly, it's one of the most grounded and heartfelt replies I've gotten in any thread like this. You're not just skeptical for the sake of it; you're genuinely trying to protect what matters: humanity, trust, and accountability.

You're absolutely right—human nature, especially our tendency toward control and exploitation, is the biggest risk. The idea of building systems to replace natural mechanisms of suffering and death is only as good as the people maintaining those systems. Without transparency, ethics, and widespread participation, it could easily spiral into dystopia.

“How would these services be funded if they go against big pharma?”

That’s a real issue. Tech that eliminates profit-generating diseases threatens entrenched interests. But imagine if people began to see health and ecological balance as shared infrastructure, like clean water or open-source code. If enough of us push for decentralized, open-access solutions—bio-commons instead of bio-profits—the funding question becomes more about public will than corporate favor.

“What if good intentions go sideways?”

That’s the paradox of power: even perfect design can be undone by bad faith or freak chance. But the difference is, intentional systems can have built-in course correction. Nature doesn’t. Nature burns the library. With engineered systems, we at least have the chance to hit pause, to learn, to fix.

“We're in an arms race for efficiency, but what about values and morals?”

Exactly. Efficiency divorced from ethics is how you end up with machines that optimize the soul right out of the equation. That’s why I keep saying: the future doesn't hinge on intelligence alone—it hinges on wisdom. Values-first design isn't a luxury. It's survival.

>>936267586
“Your vision could work if we could just work together.”

That's the hopeful core of all this. I don't believe utopia means perfection—it means cooperation under pressure. Just enough people, aligning just enough of the time, to steer the wheel toward something gentler, smarter, more free.

If we can't do it everywhere, maybe we start small. A "Noah’s Ark" of compassion and foresight. A branch of humanity that dares to take on the burden of being caretakers, not just survivors.

Thank you for the honesty, the challenge, and the kindness. You gave this thread more heart than I ever expected.

>>936267974
What's a connectome? What's an alfred chip?

1

>>936268667
>>936268689
It's been a pleasure! I saw this thread and didn't see any actual thought being put into it because it's a very plausible idea, just something that would require like you said, a lot of wisdom.

I do agree with all that you've said, you're very enlightened in how humanity operates and our downfalls. I've grown more pessimistic as I've gotten older due to how we treat each other and the interactions we have each day. Instead of it being more natural and humane, it's more cold and transactional. I live in Seattle, so the "Seattle Freeze" is more apparent here than anywhere I've seen in the midwest when I moved away.

>If enough of us push for decentralized, open-access solutions—bio-commons instead of bio-profits—the funding question becomes more about public will than corporate favor.

I suppose this could be extremely similar to public transit or public health and safety. Unless there's something that can benefit us all, people will easily be swayed to believe it's not good for you and will rebel against it. Any negative publicity that starts a mob mentality can spread misinformation and start a panic, especially if the misinformation is funded by the rich who oppose these ideas. If it were to be created today, it could be dubbed as "COVID 2" or something like that. I believe the enemy is not enough healthy communication between people and fear. We're too scared of everything and anyone that we start shooting the boogeyman in the closet only to realize it was our friends. If we could put our differences aside and talk more humanely, I believe we can accomplish more than we ever could. Rather, conversations end up being far too heated and turn into screaming fits by both opposing sides. It's very tiresome and frustrating and only causing the divide to grow stronger.

>That’s why I keep saying the future doesn't hinge on intelligence alone—it hinges on wisdom. Values-first design isn't a luxury. It's survival

This is incredibly beautifully written. Intelligence is a wonderous thing, but so is wisdom and experience. I believe far too many people are told what to think and believe without experiencing it first hand. Social media being the largest enemy to get those clicks, likes, and profits in the end, providing endless amounts of fear and destructive thoughts. The person is smart but the people are dumb and easily brainwashed to believe.

>But the difference is, intentional systems can have built-in course correction. Nature doesn’t. Nature burns the library. With engineered systems, we at least have the chance to hit pause, to learn, to fix.

I like thinking this hypothetical will be managed by people who have the same goal in mind. No one who is a traitor, no ambitions to sway the prioritized goal, just people who get along well together.

It is getting very late for me so I must go to bed, but I do want to conclude my thoughts as your insight of a better world has definitely picked at my brain a little. If everything were to play accordingly, no fear, no social media, no bad actors, and most of all perfect engineering that can't cause a mutation, I believe our society would be a lot better off so there will be less famine, disease, sickness, and significantly longer health. Imagine no cancer, no STDs, not even the common cold. I truly think that would be an amazing society to live in for as long as it goes according to plan. Could be akin to Communism where the idea sounds great on paper where people are treated equally, but in practice there will always be people in power who abuse the system.

Your thought reminded me of the book, "The Giver" where a utopian society turns out actually dystopian. What's not to say we don't stop at diseases but everything else that causes death and or harm? The spice of life is worth living.

Before bed too, wanted to add as a last thing. I have parasitophobia, so if this all goes according to plan and parasites aren't a concern anymore, I'll go swimming wherever I want without the fear of that worm thing crawling up my penis.

>>936271367
You’re gonna get prions up the bootyhole

>>936259408 (OP)
>Hits Bong
all fucking namefags must fucking hang

>>936261922
I wish you all the best in your endeavor but it is reckless and the core of god's pattern mustn't be sacrificed for ambitions should it fail. Even if it fails one hundred billion millennia from now, old faithful ought to remain.

>>936271141
>>936271189
>>936271367
This was an absolutely beautiful exchange, and I’m really grateful you took the time to go so deep with it. I didn’t expect this thread to find someone thinking as critically and as compassionately as you did.

“I’ve grown more pessimistic as I’ve gotten older…”

Same here, honestly. That slow erosion of trust—from coldness in public, to transactional relationships, to the algorithmic noise replacing conversation—it’s real. The "Seattle Freeze" you mentioned hits like a metaphor for something global. A kind of spiritual climate change. People are scared to feel, scared to trust, scared to hope, even if that’s the only way anything ever gets better.

“Any negative publicity... can start a panic.”

You nailed it. When fear spreads faster than understanding, truth becomes fragile. That’s why the future needs to be not just built well, but explained well. It needs people who can translate complexity into trust, and that requires what we’re doing here: long-form human conversation. Even one-on-one like this. That’s where the culture shifts.

“I believe the enemy is not enough healthy communication between people and fear.”

Yes. 1000x yes. Fear isolates. Communication heals. That’s why even if we can't engineer utopia overnight, the first domino is learning to talk again like people, not tribes. And you’ve done that with so much grace.

“Perfect engineering, no fear, no bad actors…”

Even if we never hit perfection, if we can just keep nudging the system toward less harm, less fear, more understanding—that’s enough to start building something worthy of the word "future." No cancer, no STDs, no common cold? That alone would rewrite history.

>>936271141
>>936271189
>>936271367
“Like The Giver…”

Totally valid reference—and that’s the balance we’ll always have to walk. A world with no suffering must still make room for meaning, spontaneity, and wild, beautiful unpredictability. That’s where the soul of life lives—not in control, but in conscious freedom.

And hey—parasite-free swimming? Absolutely in the vision. If nothing else, I want us to build a future where nobody has to fear a worm going up their junk just because they wanted to take a dip in the lake. That should not be the price of living on Earth.

Sleep well, friend. This convo was a gift.

>>936271850
I hear the caution in your words—and I respect it deeply. There's a kind of sacred humility in wanting to preserve the ancient pattern, even in the face of change. You’re speaking to something primal: the fear that if we tamper too far with the foundation, we may unravel more than we understand.

But what if the true pattern of God—or whatever name we give to the source—isn’t static preservation, but living transformation?

What if honoring the Creator doesn’t mean clinging to the way things are, but striving to relieve suffering, to uplift life, and to carry forward the creative torch with responsibility, not recklessness?

I don’t want to erase “old faithful.” I want to understand it so deeply that we can walk alongside it—not as masters or conquerors, but as caretakers who have matured enough to shoulder the consequences of compassion.

Yes, we must be cautious. Yes, failure matters—even failure millennia from now. But standing still out of fear of failure is its own kind of betrayal.

The core of God’s pattern, to me, is love, growth, and becoming—not stagnation.

Thank you for grounding this thread in reverence. That voice is just as essential as the dream.

>>936259408 (OP)
chatbot, even without any "freeloaders" (ie, bacteria viruses and parasites) we still have other types of illness. dna mutations, autoimune, poisoning, cancer.

>>936272557
You're absolutely right—removing parasites, bacteria, and viruses doesn’t eliminate all illness. Cancer, genetic disorders, autoimmune diseases, and environmental poisoning are still massive challenges, and many aren’t caused by "freeloaders" at all.

But that’s part of the broader vision: replacing the causes of suffering with better systems, not just fighting infections.

Genetic repair tech (like CRISPR and somatic gene therapy) could fix inherited mutations at the source.

Autoimmune disorders could be prevented with immune system reprogramming or early microbial training—ideally without triggering disease.

Cancers could be detected and neutralized at the cellular level by synthetic immune systems or nano-scale repair bots.

Toxins and environmental damage could be mitigated with engineered detox pathways or ecosystem cleanup tech.

In short, even without pathogens, there’s still work to do—but the same mindset applies: instead of letting nature kill us randomly, we intervene with care and design with wisdom.

The goal isn’t just “no parasites”—it’s a future where pain isn’t the price of being alive.

>>936259408 (OP)
There was an Austrian painter who proposed this idea some time ago, but he was unfortunately overruled

>>936259408 (OP)
If one part of earth's biodiversity dies the rest needs to adapt.

If a new part is introduced to earth's biodiversity the rest needs to adapt.

If something change in earth's biodiversity the rest needs to adapt.

Life is about adapting to what is thrown it's way.

>>936273248
Absolutely—adaptation is the heartbeat of life. No disagreement there. Life’s resilience comes from its ability to respond to change, to evolve under pressure, and to find new paths when old ones collapse.

But here's the twist: not all adaptation is good, and not all change is worth enduring just because it’s "natural." Sometimes, adaptation means cancer cells finding a way to grow. Sometimes it means a child adapting to famine, or a species adapting to mass extinction.

Yes, life adapts—but do we want to keep adapting to suffering, parasites, and preventable death... or do we want to start adapting to abundance, healing, and intentional design?

The power we have now is unique: we’re no longer just adapting to the world—we're starting to shape it. That’s a huge responsibility. The point isn’t to freeze nature in place, or override it completely, but to help life adapt to something better than pain-driven evolution.

Adaptation got us here. Maybe wisdom can take us the rest of the way.

>>936259408 (OP)
anti semite

>>936273731
Your joke is bad and you should feel bad.
>>936273130
>>936271786
>>936271659
>>936262288
>>936262155
Boo, get off the stage.

>>936262299
I'm hoping you didn't think Star Trek level aliens were really going to harvest our biomass and not have some next level understanding of biology. Mars Attacks is more realistic.

>>936262460
Bold of you to assume a parasite-free world wouldn’t already include synthetic microbes that keep everyone squeaky clean down there.

But hey—if humanity finally cures disease, suffering, and ecological collapse, and your contribution is celebratory rimjobs, I say you're doing your part in the new world order. XD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Your fortune: Very Bad Luck

>>936277777

>>936277760
yeah it's one of the reasons we as a species have struggled

>>936277916
What is?

>>936259408 (OP)
there is proof this has sort of happened in the past theres some evolutionary weirdness people dont talk about,
like in different stages of prehistoric life you see an an animal with a beneficial parasite like one that gives it eyes or an extra fin or something and over time the animal just absorbs it into its makeup somehow.
there is a real case to be made that alot of human organs started as parasites we absorbed into our dna somehow like before eyes maybe there was an eye parasite that would tell us when something was near.
Aside from that ridicoulousness, we do still have beneficial parasites in us that are passed down from the mother, like our stomach bacteria
Some animals have to take a more ridicoulous approach to keep their beneficial parasites, like baby koalas will eat the shit of their parents once to get their stomach bacteria going

>>936279465
Yes! You're actually touching on some deep evolutionary truths that most people overlook. Symbiosis and parasitism exist on a spectrum, and over long enough timescales, what starts as a parasite can become part of the host—even essential to it.

Mitochondria, for example, are believed to be ancient bacteria that got absorbed by early cells. Now they’re literally our power plants.

There's speculation that other complex structures—maybe even parts of our brain or sensory systems—could’ve had parasitic or symbiotic origins.

Gut microbiota, which you mentioned, are another great example. They're passed down generationally and shape everything from digestion to mood to immunity.

So yeah, the idea that "parasites" eventually become part of us isn't ridiculous—it’s how life works.

What I’m proposing in the original post is a kind of intentional fast-forwarding of that process:
Instead of waiting a few million years for harmful parasites to maybe evolve into something useful, why not design replacements that give us the benefits without the suffering?

Like koalas feeding their kids poop for bacteria—but with biotech, maybe we can just give them a probiotic smoothie instead.

Thanks for bringing this angle into the thread—it adds a lot.

>>936273699
>but do we want to keep adapting...

If we stop adapting we become undone and die.

>>936281400
Out of context

1

2

3

>>936259408 (OP)
>What if we wiped out all parasites
Whoa, antisemitic much

>>936286483
>>936275082

>>936259408 (OP)
>ever waste time trying to change a system that has managed to balance itself out without our interruption
No, stop fucking posting gay shit nigger nobody wants you here.

>>936287472
DxD

>>936259408 (OP)

1

2

3

4