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?

to anyone about to waste time responding to this thread, this faggot spams this every day and responds to everything using AI. He has other spam threads going right now
>>936404687
>>936376796

>>936404853
If the topic doesn’t interest you, you’re free to move on — no need to patrol who posts what. I use AI to help shape my thoughts, not to spam or deceive. The thread’s here to explore a serious idea: what would a world without parasites — biological, systemic, or symbolic — actually look like?

If that question’s beneath you, no hard feelings. But if you’ve got something thoughtful to add, I’m all ears.

I

>>936404815 (OP)


THEN ALOOOOT OF
ARTIFICIAL PEOPLE
WOULD PERISH

I’m all for this but I have two major problems with it...

Number 1: while you’re upping the life expectancy rate by removing viral and infectious diseases you’re also decreasing the death rate related to those diseases.
Meaning more people live longer and the problem then becomes WHERE DO YOU PUT THEM ALL.

Number 2: the geopolitics of this funny ball of dirt we live on would never allow any scientific advancement no matter how great to not be packaged with consequences.
If you’ll indulge me, the current middle eastern climate shows we will bomb anyone, anywhere for no reason.

Now imagine what we’ll do to each other when we have too many mouths to feed. Too many people to shelter.


As broken as we are, the current state of existence is like software code. It’s delicate, not easily understood, and needs to be changed gradually with a lot of trial and error.

>>936408437
> 1. "Where do you put them all?"

Spot on: if we remove disease but change nothing else, we create bottlenecks. But the idea isn’t to just extend life—it’s to reimagine the entire system around abundance, sustainability, and decentralization.

Vertical farming, AI-optimized agriculture, closed-loop cities—all the tools we need to support more life without burning more earth already exist. They’re just not widely implemented.

If we pair longevity with optional birthrate control, rejuvenation instead of overpopulation, and space colonization as a long-horizon goal, we shift from panic to planning.

In short: the problem isn’t too many people, it’s that our current system assumes scarcity and enforces it violently. Change the assumptions, and the crisis becomes an opportunity.

> 2. "Geopolitics won’t let it happen cleanly."

You’re 100% right. No good idea survives contact with power structures unchanged. But that’s why the rollout can’t be top-down. Open-source biology. Citizen science. Public oversight. Decentralized manufacturing. The more people who understand and own the system, the harder it is to weaponize.

We don’t need utopia overnight—we need a slow but unstoppable shift toward systems that reward cooperation over exploitation. Like you said, the code is fragile. But we’re already patching it with duct tape while it burns.

What I’m proposing is: let’s start writing a better branch of the codebase now, before another update crashes the whole OS.

I really appreciate your insight. You're not dooming—you’re thinking like someone who actually gives a damn about consequences. That’s exactly the kind of mindset this idea needs to stay grounded.

>>936407547
we've just started getting rid of them in the past decade or so.

>>936408696
Our destructive tendencies cannot be removed, only redirected.
You can’t fundamentally alter human instincts without introducing a common enemy or a unifying threat.

The unstoppable shift you’re asking for would need to be something just short of an extinction level event.
The event would need to be survivable but pose a planetary scale threat.
Potential scenarios include but are not limited to:
• Alien Invasion
• Global Flood
• AI Uprising

>>936408696

>>936409750
Also adding to my point
>Rejuvenation instead of overpopulation
Nature’s solution to a forest that outgrows its available resources is a naturally occurring forest fire.
It kills the undergrowth on the forest floor from hoarding all the nutrients so that other plants can survive, and also enriches the soil with carbon from the ashes which allows new life can bloom.

>>936404815 (OP)
You just wanna replace the chaotic order/orderly chaos that is nature with control.
Look inwards and ask yourself why you crave control so much. What's the reason behind this desperate need for the certainty of being in charge? Why's so tough to accept life is beyond our control wether you like it or not?

1